Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #238144; Unpublished
Judges Bandstra, Whitbeck and Gage; unanimous; per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable, Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Allowable Expenses for Medical Treatment [3107(1)(a)
Allowable Expenses: Reasonable Necessity Requirement [3107(1)(a)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s ruling granting defendant partial summary disposition on plaintiff’s claims that her travel expenses to and from Hawaii to obtain medical treatment were a reasonably necessary expense under section 3107(1)(a). In rejecting plaintiff’s claim, the Court of Appeals noted that transportation costs to obtain medical treatment are indeed an allowable expense, as long as the expense is both reasonable and necessary. Plaintiff bears the burden of establishing these facts. Plaintiff was not able to sustain that burden in this case. In so holding, the court stated:
“Here, plaintiff did not receive a referral to Hawaii; she located the doctor in Hawaii after seeing a television program. The only assertion that plaintiff made to support her claim that travel to Hawaii was a reasonable and necessary expense was that the doctors she had seen up to that point were not giving her the desired relief. Beyond that, plaintiff failed to provide affidavits or other evidence supporting the suggestion that there was any unique obstacle to using a physician with a closer geographic location. Absent documents supporting plaintiff’s claim that a trip to Hawaii was reasonable and necessary, the court’s decision that plaintiff lacked factual support for her claim and that defendant was entitled to partial judgment as a matter of law was correct.”
In addition, the court found that the trial court’s refusal to grant attorney fees under the provisions of MCR 2.114(E) with respect to that portion of plaintiff’s claim that sought wage loss benefits and replacement service expenses beyond the three year benefit period set forth in the No-Fault Act was error. In this regard, the court stated:
“. . . where pleadings clearly violate a statutory period of limitations, the offending party is subject to sanctions because there is no basis for arguing that existing law warrants the claim. Thus, the trial court’s failure to grant attorney fees under MCR 2.114(E) with respect to plaintiff’s claims filed in violation of the periods of limitation in MCL 500.3107(b) and MCL 500.3145(1) was clearly erroneous.”
However, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s refusal to grant attorney fees to the insurer under section 3148(2) of the No-Fault Act.
