Medical examiner presents 2024 report and asks county to consider CT scanner; discloses management company relationship

The county's medical examiner representative delivered the 2024 annual report on unexpected deaths in Montcalm County, highlighted patterns in drug‑involved deaths and recommended exploring a CT scanner to support virtual autopsies and improved data collection.

Lisa (medical examiner representative) reported a 6.8 percent increase in the number of unexpected deaths and noted that heart disease led causes while unintentional injuries accounted for about 22 percent of cases. She emphasized the value of richer scene data to inform prevention efforts and drew parallels to earlier public‑health initiatives that used data to change practice (for example, sudden infant death investigations that contributed to the Back to Sleep / safe sleep public‑health campaign).

Lisa described work underway to install a CT scanner in Crawford County and asked the board to consider hosting a scanner in Montcalm County to support forensic radiology services locally. She said a refurbished CT scanner price was about $230,000 plus installation costs (shielding/lead wall and space requirements), and she described benefits including faster, non‑invasive scanning for blunt‑force trauma, drug‑related deaths, and mass‑fatality readiness. She said a scanner would support law enforcement, prosecutors and public‑health agencies by preserving a virtual record that can be re‑read later.

During the discussion a commissioner asked whether other counties could share a scanner. Lisa described a model under which a county (for example Crawford) owns the unit and charges a facility fee for scans, and she said Montcalm could pursue a similar regional user model to recover operating costs. She estimated a modest physical footprint (roughly a 12‑by‑12 area, subject to design) and noted that bodies typically remain in body bags during seven‑minute scans, reducing handling and transport.

A commissioner asked about the presenter’s business interest. Lisa disclosed that she is the sole owner of a management company that provides administrative management for forensic services and that the company does not perform autopsies or profit from ordering tests: “No. And, actually, my company is a management company only only. So you only pay for the time that my company provides for management,” she said. She said the owning county (not her company) would own the scanner and counties would pay facility fees to cover upkeep and operating costs.

The board moved to place the medical examiner annual report on file; the motion was moved and supported and carried by voice vote.

What’s next: Lisa will prepare more detailed cost and space requirements if the board wants to pursue a scanner. Commissioners expressed interest in evaluating multi‑county sharing, anticipated installation and operating costs, and potential funding sources (including grants and county funds).