Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #259012; Unpublished
Judges Markey, Schuette, and Borrello; unanimous; per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not applicable, Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Injured Person and Dependents as Payees [3112]
One-Year Back Rule Limitation [3145(1)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Revised Judicature Act – Tolling of Statutes of Limitations
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals held that a severely brain injured person is entitled to reimbursement for attendant care services he received from 1980 to September 30, 1993, the effective date of the amendment to MCL 600.5851(1), but that recovery for additional attendant care services was limited to one year back from the date the pending lawsuit was filed. Plaintiff Phyllis Gulley provided Darnell Hill 24-hour attendant care from 1980 to the present. Defendant paid plaintiff for her services from 1984 to the present. Plaintiff brought this action, alleging that she was underpaid for her services. The trial court found for plaintiff and defendant appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed in part, finding that Darnell was entitled to reimbursement for attendant care services but that recovery for those services was only available from 1980 to September 30, 1993, the effective date of the amendment to MCL 600.5951(1); and that after the effective date of the amendment, Darnell’s recovery was limited to losses incurred one year or less before the date this action was filed. In this regard, the court stated:
“We conclude that plaintiff’s claims are tolled by the insanity savings provision provided for by the pre-1993 amendment version MCL 600.5851(1) for the expenses plaintiff incurred during the time period of 1980 to September 30, 1993. . . . However, plaintiff is not entitled to avail herself of the insanity savings provision provided for in MCL 600.5851(1) for the expenses plaintiff incurred during the time period of October 1, 1993, to March 19, 2002, because these expenses accrued after the effective date of the 1993 amendment to MCL 600.5851(1). . . . Finally, pursuant to MCL 500.3145(1), plaintiff is limited by the ‘one-year back rule’ to those expenses incurred within the one year preceding the filing of the action. . . . Thus, plaintiff can recover for the expenses incurred from March 21, 2002, to March 20, 2003.”
The court also determined that plaintiff’s claim is derivative of the injured person’s claim. In so holding, the court noted that MCL 500.3112 provides that personal protection insurance benefits are payable to or for the benefit of an injured person and that under Hatcher v State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins Co [RB #2640], a person entitled to expenses does not have an independent cause of action. In this regard, the court stated:
“Under MCL 500.3112 ‘[p]ersonal protection insurance benefits are payable to or for the benefit of an injured person.’ This Court recently decided Hatcher v State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins Co, ___ Mich App ___; ___ NW2d ___ (Docket No 262964, issued December 20, 2005 and published after release). This Court noted that MCL 500.3112 ‘confers a cause of action on the injured party and does not create an independent cause of action for the party who is legally responsible for the injured party’s expenses.’ . . . In the present case, plaintiff did not have an independent cause of action for attendant care services. Plaintiff’s cause of action to bring a claim for benefits is derivative of Darnell’s rights under the no-fault act. . . . Accordingly, the trial court properly concluded that the right to bring a claim for attendant care services belongs to Darnell and that plaintiff’s claims were derivative of Darnell’s rights.”
[Author’s Note: This case was decided before the Michigan Supreme Court decided Cameron v ACII. Had the Supreme Court’s decision been applied, the Court of Appeals may have reached a different result.]
