Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 223572; Published
Judges Smolenski, Jansen and Fitzgerald; unanimous; per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 245 Mich. App. 171, Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
State Workers Compensation Benefits [3109(1)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
No-fault Insurer Claims for Reimbursement: Insurer Reimbursement – Other Scenarios
Workers Disability Compensation Act
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous published per curiam opinion by Judge Jansen, the Court of Appeals held that when a no-fault insurer sues a workers’ compensation insurer to obtain reimbursement for medical expenses that were paid by the no-fault insurer but should have been paid by the workers’ compensation insurer, the no-fault insurer’s reimbursement claim for medical expenses is limited by the cost containment rules set forth in the Workers’ Disability Compensation Act, and therefore, the workers’ compensation carrier only has to reimburse the no-fault insurer the amount the workers’ compensation insurer would have been required to pay the medical providers directly, had the workers’ compensation insurer paid the medical expenses in the first instance. The Court of Appeals rejected the claim of the no-fault insurer that it should be entitled to reimbursement for the full amount of the medical expenses paid because an employee who had paid his or her own medical expenses would have been entitled to full recoupment from the employer or the workers’ compensation insurer. In the case at bar, the court noted that the employee never personally paid any of his medical expenses and, therefore, the “reimbursement in full” provisions of the Workers’ Disability Compensation Act did not apply. Therefore, the court held that under section 3109(1) of the No-Fault Act, the no-fault insurer’s reimbursement claim “is limited by the cost containment rule set forth in the WCDA.”
