Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #286087; Published
Judges Borrello, Whitbeck, and Kelly; unanimous; per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 286 Mich App 219, Link to Opinion
Michigan Supreme Court Denied Leave to Appeal 5/20/2011, Link to Order 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
One-Year Back Rule Limitation [3145(1)]
Time Limitation on a Claimant Making a Claim Through the Assigned Claims Facility [3174]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous published per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals held that the one-year-back rule of MCL 500.3145(1) barred the plaintiff medical provider from recovering payment of its bill, even though the provider filed suit more than one year after the bill had been incurred, because the claim was through an assigned claims insurer and MCL 500.3174 prohibited suit from being filed until 30 days after the insurer received assignment of the claim, which, in this case, was a date that was more than one year from when the subject expense was incurred.
On December 29, 2006, Lemuel Brown was injured in a motor vehicle accident that occurred while he was driving a borrowed vehicle. Brown was transported to Bronson Methodist Hospital where he was an inpatient until January 5, 2007. Brown’s medical expenses totaled $37,465.01.
The vehicle Brown was driving was uninsured and neither Brown nor any of the relatives with whom he lived had motor vehicle insurance. Therefore, on December 14, 2007, Bronson Methodist Hospital submitted an application with the Michigan Assigned Claims Facility (MACF). The MACF assigned the claim to Allstate on January 7, 2008. Bronson Methodist received notice of the assignment on January 15, 2008. Bronson Methodist billed Allstate directly, but Allstate refused to pay the claim. On February 6, 2008, Bronson Methodist filed an action seeking recovery for Brown’s medical expenses. Allstate moved for summary disposition, arguing that the action was barred by the one-year-back rule contained in MCL 500.3145(1). The trial court agreed, and granted Allstate’s motion.
On appeal, Bronson Methodist argued that summary disposition for Allstate was improper because Bronson fully complied with the time requirements of MCL 500.3174, which is the notice and commencement section of the No-Fault Act. Bronson Methodist argued that §3174 extended the recovery limitation provision of MCL 500.3145(1) with respect to assigned claims.
In affirming, the court first noted that Bronson Methodist complied with the time period of §3174 which provides that, “an action by the claimant shall not be commenced more than 30 days after receipt of notice of the assignment or the last day on which the action could have been commenced against an insurer of identifiable coverage applicable to the claim, whichever is later.” In this case, 30 days after receipt of the notice of assignment was February 15, 2008, which date was later than January 5, 2008, “the last date on which the action could have been commenced against an insurer of identifiable coverage applicable to the claim.” Bronson Methodist filed its claim on February 6, 2008, which would have been be timely under §3174. However, the court concluded that the one-year-back rule contained in §3145(1) nevertheless precluded Bronson Methodist’s recovery. In so deciding, the court explained that not only is §3145 a statute of limitation, it is also a recovery limitation provision. Although §3174 contains language making it a statute of limitation, it does not contain language extending the recovery limitation period contained in §3145(1). Therefore, because §3174 does not extend the recovery limitation period contained in §3145(1), the recovery limitation period precludes Bronson Methodist’s claim. The one-year-back rule draws a strict line which the courts must follow even if there are unfair results. Since Bronson Methodist filed its action on February 6, 2008, it was precluded from recovering benefits that occurred before February 6, 2007. Bronson Methodist last provided treatment on January 5, 2007. Therefore, it was not entitled to recover medical expenses it provided to Brown. In this regard, the court stated:
“This Court has determined that this section contains a statute of limitations provision because it allows commencement of an action at any time within one year of the most recent ‘allowable expense,’ but also contains a recovery limitation provision because it limits recovery of personal property insurance benefits to losses incurred within one year before the action commences. The recovery limitation is termed the ‘one-year-back rule’ and is to be strictly enforced as written. Therefore, under its plain terms, MCL 500.3145(1) precludes an action to recover benefits for any portion of a loss incurred more than one year before the date on which the action was commenced. . . .
[A]s explained previously, the Michigan Supreme Court has already interpreted the two phrases in MCL 500.3145(1) to constitute statutes of limitation, and therefore, use of the same terms found in MCL 500.3174 should also be interpreted as relating to the statute of imitations.
In addition, MCL 500.3174 does not contain any language extending the recovery limitation of MCL 500.3145(1). . . .
MCL 500.374 does not extend the recovery limitation found in MCL 500.3145(1), because the language used by the Legislature in MCL 500.374 unambiguously describes only an extension of the statute of limitations.
The application of the recovery limitation therefore precludes Bronson Methodist Hospital’s claim. The ‘one-year-back rule’ draws a strict line, which must be followed even with unfair results. Because Bronson Methodist Hospital commenced this action on February 6, 2008, it was precluded from recovering any benefits occurring before February 6, 2007. Bronson Methodist Hospital last treated Brown on January 5, 2007. Thus, Bronson Methodist Hospital is no longer entitled to recover any of the medical expenses it provided to Brown.”
