Subject-matter jurisdiction as to a challenge to the classification of the manner of death on a death certificate; MCR 2.116(C)(4); Travelers Ins. Co. v. Detroit Edison Co.; The Michigan Administrative Procedure Act (APA); MCL 24.301; Agency defined; MCL 24.203; League Gen. Ins. Co. v. Michigan Catastrophic Claims Ass’n; Whether a medical examiner meets the definition of an agency; MCL 52.201 et seq.; MCL 52.201(1); MCL 52.201c(1); MCL 52.201e; MCL 52.207; MCL 52.212; Contested case defined; MCL 24.203; Rule as to requesting a change to a registered death record; MI Admin R 325.3266(2)(a); Effect of an evidentiary hearing not being required; J & P Mkt., Inc. v. Liquor Control Comm’n

The court held that because this was not a contested case under MCL 24.203(3), the circuit court properly concluded that MCL 24.301 did not apply and thus, it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over plaintiff’s claim as to the classification of the manner of death on a death certificate. The case arose from the alleged misclassification of plaintiff’s child’s (D) manner of death as classified by defendant-DeJong on D’s death certificate. After reviewing the materials surrounding the investigation of the death, DeJong determined that the death was a suicide. Plaintiff disagreed and requested that DeJong change the manner of death on the “death certificate from ‘suicide’ to ‘accident.’” The court concluded that even if it assumed, “like the trial court did, that medical examiners are an ‘agency’ under the APA, the trial court nonetheless lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because this case is not a ‘contested case’ under the APA.” Assuming without deciding that Rule 325.3266(2)(a) grants the next of kin—in this case, “plaintiff—the right to challenge a medical examiner’s finding of the manner of death on a death certificate, there is no procedure that a medical examiner must follow to entertain such a challenge. In other words, the medical examiner is not required to hold an evidentiary hearing or some other similar procedure in response to the next of kin’s challenge.” In J & P, in the context of proceedings before the Liquor Control Commission, the court held that, because “an evidentiary hearing is not required by statute in connection with a transfer request, such a proceeding is not a contested case and therefore is not covered by the appeals procedure of the APA.” Applying the same reasoning in this case, “because an evidentiary hearing is not required by statute or rule in response to a request to change a death certificate, plaintiff’s request to change” the death certificate was also not a contested case. Affirmed.