Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 303919; Unpublished
Judges Fort Hood, Meter, and Murray; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion:
STATUTORY INDEXING:
PIP Benefits Not Payable for Certain Chiropractic Services [§3107b(b)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals reversed in part and affirmed in part the trial court’s dismissal of all of Plaintiff’s claims for reimbursement of chiropractic services rendered to the defendant’s insured and remanded for further proceedings because “the trial court erred when it dismissed Plaintiff’s Complaint in its entirety on the basis that MCL 500.3107b(b), as amended, applies” retroactively.
The Plaintiff in this case was a provider of chiropractic services and was seeking payment for services provided to the Defendant’s insured. The services for which reimbursement was sought were provided by Plaintiff both before and after statutory amendments were made to MCL 500.3107b(b), which took effect on January 5, 2010 and limited the scope of chiropractic services reimbursable under the No-Fault Act to only that which was defined as “chiropractic practice” under MCL 333.16401 of the Public Health Code as of January 1, 2009. The trial court applied the statutory amendments to §3107b(b) retroactively and dismissed Plaintiff’s Complaint in its entirety, finding that the claims were not reimbursable under the Act as amended. This appeal followed.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals found that the trial court improperly applied the statutory amendments to §3107b(b) retroactively and reversed the trial court’s holding with respect to Plaintiff’s pre-amendment charges. In this regard, the Court of Appeals reasoned that the amendment was “not a mere remedy of the statutory language, but a substantive change of law” and therefore applied prospectively. The parties and trial court ultimately agreed that prior to the aforementioned amendment, the charges for which reimbursement was sought would have been governed by Hofmann v ACIA, 211 Mich App 55 (1995), which only looked to the statutory definition of chiropractic services found in MCL 333.16401, and the Court noted that no determination was ever made as to whether the pre-amendment charges were reimbursable under Hofmann.
However, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s ruling with respect to the post-amendment charges being sought. In doing so, the Court rejected the Plaintiff’s argument that §3107b(b), as amended, should be read to contemplate the expanded definition of chiropractic services under §16401 (also amended on January 5, 2010). The Court reasoned that “the Legislature intended for reimbursement of chiropractic services to be limited by the definition of chiropractic practice as it existed on January 1, 2009.”
Accordingly, the Court of Appeals remanded for further proceedings without retaining jurisdiction.
