Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 333 / Act 47 of 2004
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.26269 (2026)

Fee.

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

MEDICAL RECORDS ACCESS ACT


Act 47 of 2004


333.26269 Fee.

Sec. 9.

    (1) Except as otherwise provided in this section, if a patient or his or her authorized representative makes a request for a copy of all or part of his or her medical record under section 5, the health care provider, health facility, or medical records company to which the request is directed may charge the patient or his or her authorized representative a fee that is not more than the following amounts:

    (a) An initial fee of $20.00 per request for a copy of the record.

    (b) Paper copies as follows:

    (i) One dollar per page for the first 20 pages.

    (ii) Fifty cents per page for pages 21 through 50.

    (iii) Twenty cents for pages 51 and over.

    (c) If the medical record is in some form or medium other than paper, the actual cost of preparing a duplicate.

    (d) Any postage or shipping costs incurred by the health care provider, health facility, or medical records company in providing the copies.

    (e) Any actual costs incurred by the health care provider, health facility, or medical records company in retrieving medical records that are 7 years old or older and not maintained or accessible on-site.

    (2) A health care provider, health facility, or medical records company may refuse to retrieve or copy all or part of a medical record for a patient or his or her authorized representative until the applicable fee is paid.

    (3) A health care provider, health facility, or medical records company shall not charge a fee for retrieving, copying, or mailing all or part of a medical record other than a fee allowed under subsection (1). Except as otherwise provided in subsection (4), a health care provider, health facility, or medical records company shall waive all fees for a medically indigent individual. The health care provider, health facility, or medical records company may require the patient or his or her authorized representative to provide proof that the patient is a recipient of assistance as described in this subsection.

    (4) A medically indigent individual that receives copies of medical records at no charge under subsection (3) is limited to 1 set of copies per health care provider, health facility, or medical records company. Any additional requests for the same records from the same health care provider, health facility, or medical records company shall be subject to the fee provisions under subsection (1).

    (5) Notwithstanding subsection (1), a health care provider, health facility, or medical records company shall not charge a patient an initial fee for his or her medical record.

    (6) Beginning 2 years after the effective date of this act, the department of community health shall adjust on an annual basis the fees prescribed by subsection (1) by an amount determined by the state treasurer to reflect the cumulative annual percentage change in the Detroit consumer price index.

History: 2004, Act 47, Imd. Eff. Apr. 1, 2004

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2018–2024 · leading case: Quentin White v. Henry Ford MacOmb Hosp. Corp. (Mich. Ct. App. 2023).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Quentin White v. Henry Ford MacOmb Hosp. Corp. (Mich. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 25× “Accordingly, if MCL 333.26269 were “relate[d] to the privacy of individually identifiable health information” and it were “more stringent than” a provision of 45 CFR 164.”
Quentin White v. Henry Ford MacOmb Hosp. Corp. (Mich. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 5× “It also found that White had failed to establish that [HFMH] kept its records in a form other than paper, as required for MCL 333.26269(1)(c) to apply, despite his argument that MRO’s invoice was improper because he asked for electronic records.”
Jackie Shackelford Jr v. Alaris Grp. Inc (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). “While Michigan’s Medical Record Access Act of 2004, under MCL 333.26269, does mandate that a healthcare provider provide a patient with a copy of his/her record upon request, my client is not a healthcare provider and my client correctly answered in its previous response to you…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.26269(1) — 1 case
Quentin White v. Henry Ford MacOmb Hosp. Corp. (Mich. Ct. App. 2023). “Accordingly, if MCL 333.26269 were “relate[d] to the privacy of individually identifiable health information” and it were “more stringent than” a provision of 45 CFR 164.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.26269(1)(a) — 1 case
Quentin White v. Henry Ford MacOmb Hosp. Corp. (Mich. Ct. App. 2023). “Accordingly, if MCL 333.26269 were “relate[d] to the privacy of individually identifiable health information” and it were “more stringent than” a provision of 45 CFR 164.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.26269(1)(c) — 2 cases
Quentin White v. Henry Ford MacOmb Hosp. Corp. (Mich. Ct. App. 2023). “Accordingly, if MCL 333.26269 were “relate[d] to the privacy of individually identifiable health information” and it were “more stringent than” a provision of 45 CFR 164.”
Quentin White v. Henry Ford MacOmb Hosp. Corp. (Mich. Ct. App. 2024). “It also found that White had failed to establish that [HFMH] kept its records in a form other than paper, as required for MCL 333.26269(1)(c) to apply, despite his argument that MRO’s invoice was improper because he asked for electronic records.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.26269(2) — 2 cases
Quentin White v. Henry Ford MacOmb Hosp. Corp. (Mich. Ct. App. 2023). “Accordingly, if MCL 333.26269 were “relate[d] to the privacy of individually identifiable health information” and it were “more stringent than” a provision of 45 CFR 164.”
Quentin White v. Henry Ford MacOmb Hosp. Corp. (Mich. Ct. App. 2024). “It also found that White had failed to establish that [HFMH] kept its records in a form other than paper, as required for MCL 333.26269(1)(c) to apply, despite his argument that MRO’s invoice was improper because he asked for electronic records.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.26269(6) — 1 case
Quentin White v. Henry Ford MacOmb Hosp. Corp. (Mich. Ct. App. 2023). “Accordingly, if MCL 333.26269 were “relate[d] to the privacy of individually identifiable health information” and it were “more stringent than” a provision of 45 CFR 164.”
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.