Personal protection insurance benefits; MCL 500.3112; Utilization review; True Care Physical Therapy, PLLC v Auto Club Group Ins Co

The court concluded defendant-insurer’s claim that the trial court erred by allowing plaintiff’s case “pursuant to MCL 500.3112 when plaintiff had not administratively appealed defendant’s utilization review [was] without merit because it has been heard and rejected by a published opinion of” the court. Defendant conducted a utilization review of the physical-therapy services plaintiff had been providing to defendant’s insured. Defendant, citing MCL 500.3157a(5), argued “that plaintiff’s lawsuit was not ripe because it had not exhausted its administrative remedy.” Plaintiff, however, claimed “that the utilization review was a nonexclusive, optional remedy and that it was free to file suit in the circuit court without first seeking administrative relief.” In True Care Physical Therapy, “this Court was presented with a materially indistinguishable fact pattern and an identical argument. This Court held ‘that the administrative appeal provided by MCL 500.3157a(5) . . . was permissive, not mandatory.’” Thus, plaintiff “could file suit under MCL 500.3112 without exhausting the permissive, nonexclusive administrative appeal.” The court noted that “True Care Physical Therapy is a published opinion of this Court issued after [11/1/90], and is therefore binding.” Thus, it was bound to affirm the trial court's denial of defendant's summary disposition motion