Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 752 / Act 323 of 1984
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 752.1007 (2026)

Evidence; rebuttable presumptions.

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

THE HEALTH CARE FALSE CLAIM ACT


Act 323 of 1984


752.1007 Evidence; rebuttable presumptions.

Sec. 7.

    (1) In a prosecution under this act, it shall not be necessary to show that the person had knowledge of similar acts having been performed in the past by a person acting on the person's behalf, nor to show that the person had actual notice that the acts by the persons acting on the person's behalf occurred, to establish the fact that a false statement or representation was knowingly made.

    (2) It shall be a rebuttable presumption that a person knowingly made a claim for a health care benefit if the person's actual, facsimile, stamped, typewritten, or similar signature is used on the form required for the making of the claim for the health care benefit.

    (3) If a claim for a health care benefit is made by means of computer billing tapes or other electronic means, it shall be a rebuttable presumption that the person knowingly made the claim if the person has advised the health care corporation or health care insurer in writing that claims for health care benefits will be submitted by use of computer billing tapes or other electronic means.

    (4) In any civil or criminal action under this act the certificate of an authorized agent of the health care corporation or health care insurer setting forth that documentary material or any compilation thereof is an authentic record or compilation of records of the health care corporation or health care insurer shall create a rebuttable presumption that the record or compilation is authentic.

History: 1984, Act 323, Eff. Mar. 29, 1985

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 1995–1997 · leading case: People v. Perez-DeLeon, 568 N.W.2d 324 (Mich. Ct. App. 1997).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
People v. Perez-DeLeon, 568 N.W.2d 324 (Mich. Ct. App. 1997). “614(8)(3) and MCL 752.1007(3); MSA 28.547(107)(3). Additionally, other evidence suggested that Velez-Ruiz was aware of her office’s improper billing practices.”
People v. Premen, 532 N.W.2d 872 (Mich. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 2× “” MCL 752.1007(1); MSA 28.547(107)(1). Rather, the statute merely addresses the prosecutor’s burden of proof.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 752.1007(1) — 1 case
People v. Premen, 532 N.W.2d 872 (Mich. Ct. App. 1995). “” MCL 752.1007(1); MSA 28.547(107)(1). Rather, the statute merely addresses the prosecutor’s burden of proof.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 752.1007(2) — 1 case
People v. Premen, 532 N.W.2d 872 (Mich. Ct. App. 1995). “” MCL 752.1007(1); MSA 28.547(107)(1). Rather, the statute merely addresses the prosecutor’s burden of proof.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 752.1007(3) — 1 case
People v. Perez-DeLeon, 568 N.W.2d 324 (Mich. Ct. App. 1997). “614(8)(3) and MCL 752.1007(3); MSA 28.547(107)(3). Additionally, other evidence suggested that Velez-Ruiz was aware of her office’s improper 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.