The Mortuary Science Act (MSA) (Article 18 of the Occupational Code); Engaging in the practice of mortuary science at unlicensed locations; MCL 339.1806(3); MCL 339.604(h); MI Admin Code, R 339.18941(2) (Rule 41); MCL 339.1801(f); “Funeral directing” (MCL 339.1801(e)); “Funeral establishment” (MCL 339.1801(b)); The Prepaid Funeral & Cemetery Sales Act (the Prepaid Act); Applicability of Ansell v Department of Commerce, Bd of Exam’rs of Mortuary Sci; Exclusion of evidence; Hearsay within hearsay; MRE 408; Administrative law judge (ALJ); Generations Funeral & Cremations Services, Inc. (GFCS)

The court held that the ALJ “properly determined that respondents engaged in the practice of mortuary science at the unlicensed locations, and the circuit court properly concluded that the record supported” that decision. Respondent-GFCS had four funeral establishment locations but only one was licensed under the MSA. Respondents contended “their activities at the unlicensed locations did not constitute ‘funeral directing’ or ‘engaging in the practice of mortuary science’ in violation of the MSA and Rule 41 because the activities did not involve the handling of dead bodies.” The court disagreed, concluding that reading the relevant statutory “provisions as applying to embalming only would nullify the references to funeral directing[.]” The MSA additionally “provides that a license is required at the location where a person engages in mortuary science, and the location must be fixed[.]” GFCS had an establishment license issued for just one of its locations. “Because the MSA requires that each location be licensed, the unlicensed locations could not rely on the license for the” one licensed location. Respondents admitted “that GFCS employed five mortuary-science practitioners who utilized the title of ‘funeral director,’ three who worked in the unlicensed locations and two who worked at the” licensed one. They also acknowledged “that GFCS conducted business at the unlicensed locations, and the business included both prepaid and at-need contract sales and arrangements of funeral services and merchandise. In light of those admissions,” the ALJ’s ruling was proper. The court found respondents’ reliance on the Prepaid Act unavailing. That Act “expressly prohibits a seller or provider from offering or performing services where a mortuary-science license is required[.]” The court further determined that because “the statutory definition of ‘the practice of mortuary science’ includes funeral directing, and the MSA clearly includes nonscientific acts, Ansell is inapposite, and respondents’ reliance on” it was misplaced. In addition, the ALJ’s ruling as to their “signage and advertising was supported by competent, material, and substantial evidence.” Finally, the court upheld the ALJ’s evidentiary rulings. Affirmed.