Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket # 341439; Published
Judges Murray, Jansen, and Riordan; per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Pending; Link to Opinion
STATUTORY INDEXING:
§500.3157: Lawfully Rendered Treatment
§500.3174: General/Miscellaneous
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
SUMMARY:
In this unanimous published per curiam decision, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s summary disposition order dismissing the plaintiff’s first-party action to recover no-fault PIP benefits, and remanded for further proceedings. The Court of Appeals determined that the plaintiff’s counsel’s alleged violation of MCL 750.410—improper solicitation of a motor vehicle accident victim—did not bar the plaintiff’s action to recover PIP benefits, because the legislature did not intend for a criminal violation of MCL 750.410 to bar a no-fault action. The Court of Appeals also rejected the trial court’s erroneous finding that the plaintiff’s counsel’s wrongful conduct constituted “unlawful treatment” under MCL 500.3157. The Court of Appeals held that MCL 500.3157 concerns only treatments provided by medical providers, and in no way relates to legal services provided by attorneys.
The plaintiff in this case was injured in a motor vehicle collision and applied for no-fault PIP benefits through the Michigan Automobile Insurance Placement Facility. The MAIPF assigned the plaintiff’s claims to Allstate, and after Allstate denied the claims, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit to recover the benefits to which she was entitled. Allstate moved for summary disposition, arguing that the plaintiff was improperly solicited by her counsel and that her action must, therefore, be barred. The trial court agreed, and also determined that the plaintiff’s counsel’s improper solicitation constituted “unlawful treatment,” in violation of MCL 500.3157.
The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s summary disposition order, holding that a plaintiff’s counsel’s wrongful conduct cannot bar a legitimate claims for no-fault benefits. The wrongful conduct rule would only apply if the plaintiff, herself, engaged in the wrongful conduct. The Court reasoned:
Defendant fails to provide authority for the proposition that criminal solicitation may form the basis for recovery on a motion for summary disposition, and thereby bar a plaintiff’s claims for no-fault benefits. Although this matter was remanded for a settled record of the hearing on defendant’s motion for summary disposition, the trial court failed to provide its reasoning for holding plaintiff to the standard of the criminal statutes, and thereby dismissing her claims. Despite the complete lack of analysis by the trial court, it is clear, as stated supra, from the intent of the Legislature that the consequence for solicitation is a criminal misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment or fine, or both. MCL 750.410(2); MCL 750.410b(3). It is stating the obvious that the wrongful conduct rule has no application to these proceedings because that rule only applies when a plaintiff engages in wrongful conduct. See Orzel v Scott Drug Co, 449 Mich 550, 559; 537 NW2d 208 (1995), and Hashem v Les Stanford Oldsmobile, Inc, 266 Mich App 61, 89; 697 NW2d 558 (2005). Here, there is no suggestion that plaintiff engaged in unlawful solicitation, and to the extent her initial counsel may have, he is not a plaintiff. How plaintiff contracted with her attorney is irrelevant to her claim for no-fault benefits.
The Court of Appeals also reversed the trial court’s erroneous conclusion that the plaintiff’s counsel, by representing the plaintiff after illegally soliciting her, provided “unlawful treatment” to the plaintiff, in violation of MCL 500.3157. The Court of Appeals held that MCL 500.3157 does not apply to legal services, however, only medical services.
First, MCL 500.3157 is inapplicable because it is expressly limited to “[a] physician, hospital, clinic or other person or institution lawfully rendering treatment to an injured person . . . .” Although attorneys help people in many different and important ways, they do not, as part of their profession, render treatment to injured persons. Therefore, MCL 500.3157 simply does not apply to the actions of plaintiff’s counsel.
. . .
Therefore, the trial court erred in determining that plaintiff was unlawfully rendered treatment. Based on Miller (On Remand), 275 Mich App at 655-656, the connection between the alleged solicitation and the services rendered to plaintiff by Ortho, PC, is too attenuated to render the services provided to plaintiff unlawful. There is no indication that plaintiff received services by unlicensed physicians at Ortho, PC, or by any other provider. The Miller (On Remand) decision does not stand for the proposition that any claim submitted by a plaintiff must be rejected due to the improper act of a third party unrelated to the provision of the plaintiff’s care. Rather, the relationship between plaintiff and Quartz is unrelated to plaintiff’s medical treatment.
