Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.20176 (2026)

Notice of violation; investigation of complaints; notice of proposed action; public record; appeal; reinvestigation.

✓ current as of July 2026

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

PUBLIC HEALTH CODE

Act 368 of 1978

333.20176 Notice of violation; investigation of complaints; notice of proposed action; public record; appeal; reinvestigation.

Sec. 20176.

(1) A person may notify the department of a violation of this article or of a rule promulgated under this article that the person believes exists. The department shall investigate each written complaint received and shall notify the complainant in writing of the results of a review or investigation of the complaint and any action proposed to be taken. Except as otherwise provided in sections 20180, 21743(1)(d), and 21799a, the name of the complainant and the charges contained in the complaint are a matter of public record.

(2) Except as otherwise provided in section 21799a, a complainant who is aggrieved by the decision of the department under this section may appeal to the director. After review of an appeal under this subsection, the director may order the department to reinvestigate the complaint.

History: 1978, Act 368, Eff. Sept. 30, 1978 ;-- Am. 1978, Act 493, Eff. Mar. 30, 1979 ;-- Am. 1994, Act 52, Imd. Eff. Mar. 31, 1994

PopularName Notes:

Act 368

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases, 2004–2005 · leading case: Burton v. William Beaumont Hosp., 373 F. Supp. 2d 707 (E.D. Mich. 2005).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Burton v. William Beaumont Hosp., 373 F. Supp. 2d 707 (E.D. Mich. 2005). “The code states that “[a] patient or resident is entitled to receive and examine an explanation of his or her bill regardless of the source of payment and to receive, upon request, information relating to financial assistance available through the facility.”

Fisher v. W A Foote Mem'l Hosp., 683 N.W.2d 248 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004). “Further, MCL 333.20176 requires the department of health to investigate a health facility upon written complaint of a person who believes that the facility violated the code.”

Fisher v. Wa Foote Mem. Hosp., 683 N.W.2d 248 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004). “Further, MCL 333.20176 requires *250 the department of health to investigate a health facility upon written complaint of a person who believes that the facility violated the code.”

Fisher v. Wa Foote Mem'l Hosp., 703 N.W.2d 434 (Mich. 2005). “But that agency has the discretion to decide how, and even whether, to penalize a facility for noncompliance. Hence, the code does not set out a means of enforcement that vindicates the rights of the injured physician.”

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.