Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 121851; Unpublished
Judges Griffin, Doctoroff, and Brennan; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Penalty Attorney Fees for Service Providers [§3148]
Providers Entitled to Charge Reasonable Amount for Services [§3157]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals, relying on the previous decision in Johnson v Michigan Mutual (Item No. 1303) rejected the argument of a no-fault insurer who was servicing a claim on behalf of the Assigned Claims Facility that its obligation to reimburse a medical provider was limited to only what that provider would have received from Medicaid had the injuries not resulted from an automobile accident.
In this regard, the court stated:
"Defendant renews its argument that its liability for Clark's medical expenses should be capped by what Medicaid would have paid the providers had Clark's injuries not resulted from an auto accident. Defendant all but concedes that this issue was squarely resolved against it in Johnson v Michigan Mutual. Nonetheless, defendant submits that this court 'dodged' the real issue in Johnson. Defendant argues that the result in Johnson contravenes public policy in that it allows the availability of a no-fault remedy to increase the cost of health care. In response to this contention, we would point out that the panel in Johnson said all that need be said about public policy, when it found defendant's position 'untenable' in light of the unambiguous statutory language found in MCLA 500.3157."
The Court of Appeals, however, reversed the trial court's decision that attorney fees should be awarded under §3148 to the plaintiff medical providers who were suing the defendant assigned claims insurer. The court held that under §3148(1), only "a claimant" is entitled to recover attorney fees. The court rejected plaintiff’s argument that the term "claimant" should be construed broadly to include entities other than the person suffering the injury. The court stated, "We are not persuaded that we should expand the definition of claimants to include health care providers. As emphasized in Darnell v Auto Owners (Item No. 831), the purpose of the statute is to secure prompt payment to the injured party. Because plaintiffs are not claimants, they are not entitled to the statutory penalties. Accordingly, we vacate that portion of the trial court's award awarding plaintiff’s attorney fees and penalty interest pursuant to §3148(1) and §3142(2)."
