Exhaustion of administrative remedies; Rudolph Steiner Sch. of Ann Arbor v. Ann Arbor Charter Twp.; Genesis Ctr. PLC v. Financial & Ins. Serv. Comm’r; Blair v. Checker Cab Co.; Judicial estoppel; Spohn v. Van Dyke Pub. Sch.; Knowing, intelligent, & voluntary waiver; Failure to state a claim under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) (MCL 24.201 et seq.); Smith v. Stolberg; Adair v. Michigan; MCL 24.233(1) & (2); "Rule"; MCL 24.207(q); By Lo Oil Co. v. Department of Treasury; MCL 400.111a; MCL 400.111a(7)(d); Rutherford v. Department of Soc. Servs.; "May"; Mull v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc’y of the U.S.; MCL 333.26368(III)(A)(14) & (15); Procedural due process; Mettler Walloon, LLC v. Melrose Twp.; Mathews v. Eldridge; English v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of MI; Hinky Dinky Supermarket, Inc. v. Department of Cmty. Health; Substantive due process; Landon Holdings, Inc. v. Grattan Twp.; Office of Inspector General (OIG)

The court held that the trial court did not err in granting summary disposition to defendant where all plaintiffs failed to exhaust their administrative remedies, certain plaintiffs released related claims against defendant in the repayment agreements they entered into with defendant, and all plaintiffs’ complaints failed to state an actionable due process claim, and failed to state a claim under the APA. Plaintiffs challenged a number of defendant’s audits in which defendant determined that Medicaid had overpaid plaintiffs for services. Plaintiffs asserted “numerous legal challenges—the APA, defendant-OIG’s enabling legislation, procedural due process, and substantive due process—with the same recurring theme that defendant’s audits were conducted in the total absence of any policies or guidance.” The court held that plaintiffs’ own allegations contradicted “this claim, particularly in light of the process afforded plaintiffs to present evidence via administrative procedures and to be heard.” Affirmed.