Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.20165

Denying, limiting, suspending, or revoking application, license, or certification; notice of intent; imposition of administrative fine.

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

PUBLIC HEALTH CODE


Act 368 of 1978


333.20165 Denying, limiting, suspending, or revoking application, license, or certification; notice of intent; imposition of administrative fine.

Sec. 20165.

    (1) Except as otherwise provided in this section, after notice of intent to an applicant or licensee to deny, limit, suspend, or revoke the applicant's application or licensee's license or certification and an opportunity for a hearing, the department may deny, limit, suspend, or revoke the application, license, or certification or impose an administrative fine on a licensee if 1 or more of the following exist:

    (a) Fraud or deceit in obtaining or attempting to obtain a license or certification or in the operation of the licensed health facility or agency.

    (b) A violation of this article or a rule promulgated under this article.

    (c) False or misleading advertising.

    (d) Negligence or failure to exercise due care, including negligent supervision of employees and subordinates.

    (e) Permitting a license or certificate to be used by an unauthorized health facility or agency.

    (f) Evidence of abuse regarding a patient's health, welfare, or safety or the denial of a patient's rights.

    (g) Failure to comply with section 10115.

    (h) Failure to comply with part 222 or a term, condition, or stipulation of a certificate of need issued under part 222, or both.

    (i) A violation of section 20197(1).

    (2) The department may deny an application for a license or certification based on a finding of a condition or practice that would constitute a violation of this article if the applicant were a licensee.

    (3) Denial, suspension, or revocation of an individual emergency medical services personnel license under part 209 is governed by section 20958.

    (4) If the department determines under subsection (1) that a health facility or agency has violated section 20197(1), the department shall impose an administrative fine of $5,000,000.00 on the health facility or agency.

    

    

History: 1978, Act 368, Eff. Sept. 30, 1978 ;-- Am. 1986, Act 186, Eff. Oct. 7, 1986 ;-- Am. 1988, Act 332, Eff. Oct. 1, 1988 ;-- Am. 1990, Act 179, Imd. Eff. July 2, 1990 ;-- Am. 1998, Act 108, Eff. Mar. 23, 1999 ;-- Am. 2008, Act 39, Eff. May 1, 2008 ;-- Am. 2024, Act 250, Eff. Apr. 2, 2025

PopularName Notes:

Act 368
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 2004–2005 · leading case: Burton v. William Beaumont Hospital
Burton v. William Beaumont Hospital (2005) mied “§ 333.20165(l)(f). Patient rights under the code include a health facility’s billing practices.”
Fisher v. W A Foote Memorial Hospital (2004) michctapp “MCL 333.20165(1)(b) provides for the limitation, suspension, or revocation of a health facility license, as well as an administrative fine on a hospital that violates a provision contained in the code.”
Fisher v. WA FOOTE MEM. HOSP. (2004) michctapp “MCL 333.20165(1)(b) provides for the limitation, suspension, or revocation of a health facility license, as well as an administrative fine on a hospital that violates a provision contained in the code.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.20165(1)(b) — 2 cases
Fisher v. W A Foote Memorial Hospital (2004) michctapp “MCL 333.20165(1)(b) provides for the limitation, suspension, or revocation of a health facility license, as well as an administrative fine on a hospital that violates a provision contained in the code.”
Fisher v. WA FOOTE MEM. HOSP. (2004) michctapp “MCL 333.20165(1)(b) provides for the limitation, suspension, or revocation of a health facility license, as well as an administrative fine on a hospital that violates a provision contained in the code.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.20165(l)(f) — 1 case
Burton v. William Beaumont Hospital (2005) mied “§ 333.20165(l)(f). Patient rights under the code include a health facility’s billing practices.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.