156622 - WA Foote Memorial Hosp v Assigned Claims Plan
Attorney Information
|
W A Foote Memorial Hospital, d/b/a Allegiance
Health,
|
|
Joseph Gavin
|
|
|
Plaintiff-Appellant,
|
|
|
v
|
(Appeal from Ct of
Appeals)
|
|
|
|
(Kent – Johnston, D.)
|
|
|
Michigan Assigned Claims Plan and Michigan Automobile
Insurance Placement Facility,
|
|
Lori McAllister
|
|
|
Defendants-Appellees,
|
|
|
and
|
|
|
|
John Doe Insurance Company,
|
Defendant.
|
|
Order Link
Order Link 2
Order Link 3
Opinions Link
Opinions Link 2
Opinions Link 3
Summary
Page Content
In Covenant Medical Center, Inc v State Farm Mutual Auto Ins Co, 500
Mich 191 (2017), the Supreme Court held that a healthcare provider has no cause
of action under the no-fault act against a no-fault insurer for recovery of personal
protection insurance (PIP) benefits, thereby overruling inconsistent Court of
Appeals caselaw. The issue in this case
is whether Covenant applies
retroactively to cases pending on direct review when it was issued. The Court of Appeals, in a published opinion,
held that Covenant applies
retroactively to this case and affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary
disposition in favor of defendants, albeit for different reasons than those
stated by the trial court. The Court of
Appeals held that Spectrum Health Hospitals
v Farm Bureau Mutual Ins Co of Mich, 492 Mich 503 (2012), “effectively
repudiated” application of the “threshold question” and the “three-factor test”
that were addressed in Pohutski v City of
Allen Park, 465 Mich 675, 696 (2002).
The Supreme Court has ordered oral argument on plaintiff’s application
for leave to appeal to address: (1) whether
Covenant should be applied to this case; (2) whether the Court of Appeals
correctly concluded that Pohutski has
been “effectively repudiated” in the context of judicial decisions involving statutory
interpretation, see Spectrum Health
Hospitals v Farm Bureau Mutual Ins Co of Mich, 492 Mich 503 (2012); Wayne County v Hathcock, 471 Mich 445,
484 n 98 (2004); and Devillers v Auto
Club Ins Ass’n, 473 Mich 562, 587 n 57 (2005); and (3) if Pohutski has not been effectively
repudiated, whether the Pohutski framework
should have been applied in Spectrum.
This case will be argued at the same session as Jawad A Shah, MD, PC v State Farm Mutual Auto Ins Co, No. 157951.