The Legal Examiner Affiliate Network The Legal Examiner The Legal Examiner The Legal Examiner search instagram avvo phone envelope checkmark mail-reply spinner error close The Legal Examiner The Legal Examiner The Legal Examiner
Skip to main content

Since last week’s blog post, the Michigan Court of Appeals issued yet another published decision strengthening a medical provider’s independent standing to pursue no-fault benefits.  The case is Chiropractors Rehabilitation Group v State Farm Mut Ins Co, found here.   As has been the insurance industry’s repeated attack, State Farm challenged the standing of a medical provider to bring its own, independent no-fault claim.  And once again, the Court of Appeals rejected the attack relying on the express language of section 3112, which states, in pertinent part, that “[p]ersonal protection insurance benefits are payable to or for the benefit of an injured person. . . .” (Emphasis supplied).  The Court further relied on its previously published and binding decisions, including last week’s Covenant Med Ctr, Inc v State Farm Mut Auto Ins Co, found here.  The import of these decisions is clear: Medical Providers should aggressively pursue no-fault insurance recovery and ignore an insurer’s games in delaying and denying proper payment.  For a more informative discussion on how to build a successful medical provider auto insurance litigation campaign, please contact us for a free consultation.  Members of our team of no-fault insurance lawyers have been handling direct medical provider no-fault claims for over 15 years.

Authored by L. Page Graves

Comments for this article are closed.