Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket # 346650; Unpublished
Judges Murray, Swartzle, and Cameron; Per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Lawfully Rendered Treatment [§3157]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam decision, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s denial of the defendant’s motion for summary disposition and remanded for entry of an order granting defendant’s motion. The Court of Appeals ruled that the plaintiff’s adult foster care treatment was not “lawfully rendered” pursuant to MCL 500.3157(1) because the facility providing that treatment—and an independent contractor the facility hired to provide the plaintiff with personal care assistance—were unlicensed.
The plaintiff, Randy Olsen was injured after being struck by a motor vehicle insured by the defendant, Allstate Insurance Company. After the collision, Olsen began receiving treatment from Adult Residential Care Services (“ARCS”), and Continuum Home Care Services, with whom ARCS contracted to provide “home care services.” After discovering that ARCS was not a licensed adult foster care facility, Allstate refused to pay for the services it provided to Olsen, arguing that his treatment was not “lawfully rendered” under MCL 500.3157(1). Olsen filed this action in response, and Allstate moved for summary disposition. Olsen argued in response to Allstate’s motion that while ARCS provided him with supervision and protection, Continuum provided his personal care, and “that so long as the facility housing the patient does not provide all components of foster care, a license is not required.” The trial court ultimately denied Allstate’s motion for summary disposition, finding that a question of fact existed as to who provided Olsen’s personal care.
The Court of Appeals ruled that the trial court erred in denying Allstate’s motion for summary disposition because the record before the trial court showed that David Hooven, ARCS’s owner and Olsen’s nurse case manager, did provide Olsen with personal care services. The Court also refused to adopt Olsen’s argument “that so long as the facility housing the patient does not provide all components of foster care, a license is not required,” as that “would turn the licensure requirement into a nullity.”
Maintenance of a medication schedule is one of the activities listed under MCL 400.706(1) as constituting personal care. The unrebutted testimony of Hooven clearly demonstrated that plaintiff required this assistance, and it was provided by Hooven while plaintiff was at ARCS. Hooven testified (similar to the unlicensed provider in Healing Place) that he “manage[d] [plaintiff’s] medications and I do all those nursing back-up things to the attendant care . . . .” Indeed, in his deposition, Hooven testified that he did not do “any of the personal care issues” for plaintiff, except “monitoring the medications and [setting] those up.” Finally, the billing summary submitted by ARCS to defendant included services to “fill medical pillboxes at least weekly,” among other medical services. Thus, ARCS provided plaintiff with “supervision, personal care, and protection,” MCL 400.704(8), and was not licensed as an adult foster care facility. The treatment it rendered was, for purposes of reimbursement under the no-fault act, unlawful.
Plaintiff’s argument—that so long as the facility housing the patient does not provide all components of foster care, a license is not required—would turn the licensure requirement into a nullity. “[A] reviewing court should not interpret a statute in such a manner as to render it nugatory.” Apsey v Memorial Hosp, 477 Mich 120, 131; 730 NW2d 695 (2007). Under plaintiff’s interpretation, facilities would be disincentivized from obtaining a license, which would run contrary to the Legislature’s intent when creating the licensure requirement. See Greentrees Civic Ass’n v Pignatiello, 123 Mich App 767, 772; 333 NW2d 350 (1983), aff’d 423 Mich 466 (1985) (quotation marks omitted) (“The purpose of the Adult Foster Care Facility Licensing Act, as stated in its title, is to provide for the licensing and regulation of adult foster care facilities; to provide for the establishment of standards of care for adult foster care facilities; to prescribe powers and duties of the department of social services and other departments; to prescribe penalties; and to repeal certain acts and parts of acts.”).
