Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 272018; Published
Judges Cooper, Murphy, and Neff; 2-1 (Judges Neff and Murphy concurring)
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 275 Mich. App. 643, Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
One-Year Back Rule Limitation [3145(1)]
Tolling of Limitations for Estoppel [3145]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this 2-1 published opinion by Judge Cooper, the Court of Appeals held that plaintiff hospital’s suit to recover no-fault personal injury protection benefits should have been dismissed pursuant to the one-year-back rule, even though retroactive application of Devillers v ACIA, 473 Mich 562 (2005) [Item No. 2646], gave plaintiff only one day to file suit.
The injured person in this case was treated by plaintiff hospital from July 30, 2004 to August 24, 2004. The patient was uninsured and the Michigan Assigned Claims Facility assigned her claim to Travelers Insurance Company. Plaintiff submitted a bill for services which was initially approved by Travelers’ auditor, but ultimately denied based upon the patient’s alleged lack of cooperation. Meanwhile, on July 29, 2005, the Michigan Supreme Court issued its opinion in Devillers in which it strictly construed the one-year-back rule. Eventually, the patient’s claim was reassigned to defendant Titan Insurance Company. Plaintiff sued Titan for payment. The trial court denied Titan’s motion for summary disposition, finding that plaintiff was entitled to have its claim equitably tolled because plaintiff had relied on the auditor’s approval of plaintiff’s bill.
On appeal, Judge Cooper reversed, holding that because the Devillers holding is retroactive, the court was bound to apply the one-year-back rule, even though the release date of Devillers only allowed plaintiff one day in which to file suit. In this regard, the court stated:
“HFHS argues that the one-year-back rule should be tolled under the doctrines of equitable estoppel or judicial tolling because of the unusual and misleading circumstances of this case. We agree in principle, because plaintiff is quite correct that the circumstances of this case are unique, and the result uniquely unfair. This case indeed presents an ideal example of the absurd results produced by the regrettably strict line drawn by Devillers. Nonetheless, we recognize, because we must, that the Devillers Court did draw that line. We further note that the Devillers Court specifically stated that its holding was retroactive. . . . We are therefore bound to find, despite the fact that the release date of Devillers, July 29, 2005, effectively allowed HFHS only one day to sue Titan, that Devillers mandates reversal of plaintiff’s otherwise legitimate action. Reversed and remanded for entry of an order granting summary disposition to defendant.”
