THE MICHIGAN PENAL CODE
Act 328 of 1931
750.411 Hospitals, pharmacies, physicians; duty to report injuries; violation as misdemeanor; immunity; limitations.
Sec. 411.
(1) A person, firm, or corporation conducting a hospital or pharmacy in this state, the person managing or in charge of a hospital or pharmacy, or the person in charge of a ward or part of a hospital to which 1 or more persons come or are brought suffering from a wound or other injury inflicted by means of a knife, gun, pistol, or other deadly weapon, or by other means of violence, has a duty to report that fact immediately, both by telephone and in writing, to the chief of police or other head of the police force of the village or city in which the hospital or pharmacy is located, or to the county sheriff if the hospital or pharmacy is located outside the incorporated limits of a village or city. The report shall state the name and residence of the person, if known, his or her whereabouts, and the cause, character, and extent of the injuries and may state the identification of the perpetrator, if known.
(2) A physician or surgeon who has under his or her charge or care a person suffering from a wound or injury inflicted in the manner described in subsection (1) has a duty to report that fact in the same manner and to the same officer as required by subsection (1).
(3) A person, firm, or corporation that violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor.
(4) To the extent not protected by the immunity conferred by 1964 PA 170, MCL 691.1401 to 691.1415, a person who makes a report in good faith under subsection (1) or (2) or who cooperates in good faith in an investigation, civil proceeding, or criminal proceeding conducted as a result of such a report is immune from civil or criminal liability that would otherwise be incurred by making the report or cooperating in the investigation or civil or criminal proceeding. A person who makes a report under subsection (1) or (2) or who cooperates in an investigation, civil proceeding, or criminal proceeding conducted as a result of such a report is presumed to have acted in good faith. The presumption created by this subsection may be rebutted only by clear and convincing evidence.
(5) The immunity from civil and criminal liability granted under subsection (4) extends only to the actions described in subsection (4) and does not extend to another act or omission that is negligent or that amounts to professional malpractice, or both, and that causes personal injury or death.
(6) The physician-patient privilege created under section 2157 of the revised judicature act of 1961, 1961 PA 236, MCL 600.2157, a health professional-patient privilege created under article 15 of the public health code, 1978 PA 368, MCL 333.16101 to 333.18838, and any other health professional-patient privilege created or recognized by law do not apply to a report made under subsection (1) or (2), are not valid reasons for a failure to comply with subsection (1) or (2), and are not a defense to a misdemeanor charge filed under this section.
History: 1931, Act 328, Eff. Sept. 18, 1931 ;-- CL 1948, 750.411 ;-- Am. 2000, Act 339, Eff. Apr. 1, 2001
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
21
cases (
8 in the last 5 years), 1976–2025 · leading case:
People v. Perlos, 462 N.W.2d 310 (Mich. 1990).
People v. Perlos, 462 N.W.2d 310 (Mich. 1990).
· cites it 4× “Similar legislation placing a reporting obligation on medical institutions is MCL 750.411; MSA 28.643, which requires that medical personnel report wounds inflicted by deadly weapons to local authorities.”
People v. Nyx, 734 N.W.2d 548 (Mich. 2007).
· cites it 2× “[30] MCL 750.411 l through MCL 750.411 o . [31] We recognize that a cognate lesser offense may not exist for each of these formally degreed offenses.”
Tm v. Mz, 926 N.W.2d 900 (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
“After hearing oral argument, the trial court modified the PPO so that respondent only was prohibited from posting messages "pursuant to MCL 750.411(s)." The trial court subsequently entered an amended order modifying the PPO.”
People v. Jordan, 468 N.W.2d 294 (Mich. Ct. App. 1991).
· cites it 2× “In so holding, we reject the prosecutor's argument that the hospital's statutory duty, pursuant to MCL 750.411; MSA 28.643, to report to the police patients being treated for gunshot wounds includes a duty to turn over all the patient's possessions to the police.”
People v. Traylor, 377 N.W.2d 371 (Mich. Ct. App. 1985).
· cites it 3× “The issue presented is whether the privilege must give way to MCL 750.411; MSA 28.643, which requires that any wound inflicted by a deadly weapon must be reported to the local police authorities.”
Hilden v. Hurley Med. Ctr., 831 F. Supp. 2d 1024 (E.D. Mich. 2011).
“Hilden alleged in that complaint that Moore was stalking her in violation of Michigan Compiled Laws § 750.411(h) and (i). The reported facts, from both Moore and Hilden, do not suggest that Moore was “stalking” Hilden, and the suggestion that she was doing so is bizarre.”
People v. Childs, 622 N.W.2d 90 (Mich. Ct. App. 2000).
“Similarly, this Court has held that the Legislature impliedly created an exception to the physician-patient privilege by enacting MCL 750.411; MSA 28.643, which requires medical personnel to report wounds inflicted by deadly weapons.”
People v. Abdalla, 247 N.W.2d 332 (Mich. Ct. App. 1976).
“The police were notified as required by MCLA 750.411; MSA 28.643. Officers who responded to the call interviewed the defendant on the theory that he was a victim *700 and not a suspect.”
In Re Sb (Mich. Ct. App. 2024).
· cites it 3× “411h and MCL 750.411[l],” including by “approaching or confronting the petitioner in a public place or on private property,” the Court concluded as follows: At the show-cause hearing, [the] petitioner testified that he was mowing the lawn .”
People of Michigan v. Gerard Anthony Shipley (Mich. Ct. App. 2020).
· cites it 2× “” MCL 750.411(1)(e). A “[c]ourse of conduct” is “a pattern of conduct composed of a series of 2 or more separate noncontinuous acts evidencing a continuity of purpose.”
People of Michigan v. Daniel Joseph Debono (Mich. Ct. App. 2023).
· cites it 2× “411(4) (providing “immunity” from prosecution for various reporting activities required by MCL 750.411); MCL 750.239(4) (“The department of state police is immune from civil liability for disposing of a firearm in compliance with this section.”
Dew v. Jm III (Mich. Ct. App. 2024).
· cites it 2× “” Petitioner alleged that respondent’s conduct constituted stalking as defined by MCL 750.411(h) and MCL 750.411(i). The petition was supported by affidavits from petitioner and other witnesses who purported to observe some of the alleged behavior by respondent.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.411(1)(a) — 1 case
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.411(1)(c) — 1 case
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.411(1)(d) — 2 cases
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.411(1)(e) — 1 case
People of Michigan v. Gerard Anthony Shipley (Mich. Ct. App. 2020).
“” MCL 750.411(1)(e). A “[c]ourse of conduct” is “a pattern of conduct composed of a series of 2 or more separate noncontinuous acts evidencing a continuity of purpose.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.411(1)(f)(v) — 1 case
People of Michigan v. Gerard Anthony Shipley (Mich. Ct. App. 2020).
“” MCL 750.411(1)(e). A “[c]ourse of conduct” is “a pattern of conduct composed of a series of 2 or more separate noncontinuous acts evidencing a continuity of purpose.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.411(4) — 1 case
People of Michigan v. Daniel Joseph Debono (Mich. Ct. App. 2023).
“411(4) (providing “immunity” from prosecution for various reporting activities required by MCL 750.411); MCL 750.239(4) (“The department of state police is immune from civil liability for disposing of a firearm in compliance with this section.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.411(H) — 1 case
In Re Sb (Mich. Ct. App. 2024).
“411h and MCL 750.411[l],” including by “approaching or confronting the petitioner in a public place or on private property,” the Court concluded as follows: At the show-cause hearing, [the] petitioner testified that he was mowing the lawn .”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.411(I) — 1 case
In Re Sb (Mich. Ct. App. 2024).
“411h and MCL 750.411[l],” including by “approaching or confronting the petitioner in a public place or on private property,” the Court concluded as follows: At the show-cause hearing, [the] petitioner testified that he was mowing the lawn .”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.411(h) — 3 cases
Hilden v. Hurley Med. Ctr., 831 F. Supp. 2d 1024 (E.D. Mich. 2011).
“Hilden alleged in that complaint that Moore was stalking her in violation of Michigan Compiled Laws § 750.411(h) and (i). The reported facts, from both Moore and Hilden, do not suggest that Moore was “stalking” Hilden, and the suggestion that she was doing so is bizarre.”
Dew v. Jm III (Mich. Ct. App. 2024).
“” Petitioner alleged that respondent’s conduct constituted stalking as defined by MCL 750.411(h) and MCL 750.411(i). The petition was supported by affidavits from petitioner and other witnesses who purported to observe some of the alleged behavior by respondent.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.411(i) — 1 case
Dew v. Jm III (Mich. Ct. App. 2024).
“” Petitioner alleged that respondent’s conduct constituted stalking as defined by MCL 750.411(h) and MCL 750.411(i). The petition was supported by affidavits from petitioner and other witnesses who purported to observe some of the alleged behavior by respondent.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.411(s) — 1 case
Tm v. Mz, 926 N.W.2d 900 (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
“After hearing oral argument, the trial court modified the PPO so that respondent only was prohibited from posting messages "pursuant to MCL 750.411(s)." The trial court subsequently entered an amended order modifying the PPO.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.411(s)(1) — 1 case
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.