Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket Nos. 219347, 219397, 219401 and 219405;
Judges O’Connell, Fitzgerald and Wilder; Unanimous
MTLA File No. OP-1511-7.
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 246 Mich App 568, Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Allowable Expenses: Reasonable Necessity Requirement [3107(1)(a)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous published opinion written by Judge O’Connell, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s ruling that brain SPECT scans, per se, constitute “reasonably necessary” expenses under the No-Fault Act, even though factual disputes existed with regard to whether the scans were reasonable and necessary for the individual patients who underwent the scans. The Court of Appeals held that it was error for the trial court to decide, as a matter of law, that brain SPECT imaging was a reasonable and necessary expense, and therefore subject to reimbursement under section 3107(1)(a), where the defendants vehemently argued that the SPECT scans were not reasonably necessary services in the treatment of the specific patients who received these services. In concluding that the trial court erred, the Court of Appeals stated:
“The trial court’s decision was grounded in its reasoning that SPECT scans in general assist physicians in the diagnosis and treatment of traumatic brain injuries. However, absent from the trial court’s decision was any reasoning with regard to whether brain SPECT scans were reasonably necessary for each insured. In our view, the court erred in not considering whether each particular expense at issue was reasonably necessary for each particular insured. In our view, the conflict among plaintiff’s and defendants’ expert witnesses, together with the dissension in the medical literature regarding whether SPECT scans are useful in diagnosing mild traumatic brain injury, create a genuine factual issue sufficient to withstand summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10)....”
In reversing the trial court’s grant of summary disposition on the issue that SPECT scans were compensable under section 3107(1)(a), the Court of Appeals remanded the case with instructions that the court do two things: (1) conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine whether SPECT scans are admissible under MRE 702 and (2) if evidence relating to SPECT scans are admissible, then to submit to the jury for determination, the issue whether the SPECT scanning done in this particular case was a reasonably necessary expense in the treatment of the specific patients involved. In this regard, the court stated:
“On remand, the trial court shall conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine whether expert testimony and evidence relating to SPECT imaging are admissible under MRE 702 and Davis-Frye. The party proffering the evidence bears the burden of demonstrating its acceptance in the medical community.... If the court determines that the expert testimony and evidence relating to SPECT imaging satisfies the standards of MRE 702 and Davis-Frye, and is therefore admissible at trial, the ensuing determination, whether brain SPECT imaging was a reasonably necessary expense in the treatment of defendants’ insureds pursuant to MCL 500.3107(1)(a), is a question reserved for the trier of fact.”
In reaching its conclusion, the Court of Appeals relied heavily upon the Supreme Court’s opinion in Nasser v Auto Club Insurance Association [Item No. 1358].
