U.S. District Court Western District of Michigan; File No. G82-298
Judge Richard A. Enslen; Published
Official Federal Reporter Citation: 589 F Supp 103; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Not Applicable
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMRY:
The issue presented in this federal case is virtually identical to the one decided by Judge Miles in USA v Allstate (item number 670). However, in his written opinion, Judge Enslen comes to the opposite conclusion.
The issue in this case was whether the United States is precluded, by the tort abrogation provisions of the Michigan No-Fault Act, from recouping medical expenses it paid on behalf of a member of the U.S. military from a negligent Michigan motorist who caused the service man's injuries. The government claimed this right under the Federal Medical Care Recovery Act (MCRA), 42 USC §2651. This statute provides that if the government is required to furnish medical services to service men under circumstances "creating a tort liability" on the part of a third person, the government acquires subrogation rights against that third person for the services rendered. The defendant tortfeasor (Spencley) argued that he has no tort liability for medical expenses under §3135 of the Michigan No-Fault Act and therefore, the government does not have any rights to recover those expenses from him.
Judge Enslen rejected Spencley's contention and held that the United States was entitled to reimbursement The judge based his opinion on two other federal cases which he believes "implicitly overruled" Judge Miles' decision in USA v Allstate. The cases relied on were United States v Warner, 461 F Supp 729 (WD Mich 1978) and United States v Ferguson, No. 82-1227 (CA 6 February 7,1984). In the Warner case, the Federal District Court held that Michigan's No-Fault Law did not bar the government's recovery for property damage to one of its vehicles caused by the negligence of a Michigan driver. In his decision in that case, Judge Fox construed prior precedent as requiring the court to fashion a "federal common law remedy" for the government's loss. The holding in the Warner case was adopted by the United States 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in the recent Ferguson decision. The Ferguson case was virtually identical to the Warner case.
Even though Judge Enslen conceded that US v Allstate was "directly on point" he stated that "the Court of Appeals broad adoption of the principles enunciated in US v Standard Oil, 332 US 301 (1947) and Warner and its emphasis on the supremacy of federal interests compels me to conclude that the decision has been implicitly overruled.
[Author's Comment: This decision contains helpful citations to other federal cases that have considered the issue of the government's right to seek reimbursement where local state no-fault law has limited the liability of the tortfeasor. In that regard, it is a helpful research tool.]
