Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 110193; Published
Judges Hood, Cynar, and Griffin; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 181 Mich App 288; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Not Applicable
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Attorney Fee Liens
Medicaid Benefits
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals held that the Michigan Department of Social Services was not obligated to pay its proportionate share of attorney fees and litigation costs incurred by an accident victim who recovered a judgment against a no-fault insurer that included medical expenses paid under the Medicaid and Crippled Children Programs. The court held that under the Medicaid statute, the Department of Social Services is entitled to a statutory lien on any monies subsequently recovered by a claimant who received Medicaid and other related benefits. The statute further obligates the person receiving said benefits to "notify the State Department of the action or proceeding entered into upon commencement of the action or proceeding." (MCLA 400.106) In this case, the no-fault claimant did not give the required notice to the state of Michigan upon commencement of the proceedings. Rather, approximately seven weeks before trial, defendant advised the State of the trial date. On the morning of the trial, an Assistant Attorney General appeared on behalf of the State and was granted the right to intervene in the proceedings. The Assistant Attorney General did not participate in the trial. After a favorable verdict, the state of Michigan refused to pay any portion of the attorney fees and costs and the State's position was upheld by the trial judge.
In affirming the trial judge, the Court of Appeals stated:
"Defendant Folts failed to give the required notice and is thus, precluded from arguing that the state did nothing on its own behalf to gain reimbursement for its expenditures. The lack of notice to the Department, relegating it to the status of a pro forma intervenor, works against defendant's equity claim as it makes it difficult, if not impossible, to determine the extent of involvement the state might have had if it had been given adequate notice pursuant to the statute. Moreover, we note that by statute and by the assignment executed by defendant, defendant was never entitled to recover for the medical expenditures incurred by the Department. Thus, the trial court's denial of defendant's motion to compel payment of a proportionate share of costs and attorney fees was proper."
