PIP benefits for medical services

The court held that viewing the evidence presented in the light most favorable to intervening plaintiff-Flint Region, “there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether reasonable, allowable expenses were incurred.” Thus, the trial court’s 4/4/23 order granting summary disposition to defendant-Allstate under MCR 2.116(C)(10) was reversed and remanded. Flint Region appealed from the trial court’s 1/24/24 “stipulated dismissal order but challenged the trial court’s [4/4/23] order granting summary disposition in favor of Allstate under MCR 2.116(C)(10) and dismissing Flint Region’s claims for no-fault benefits for medical treatment services provided to” Allstate’s insured, nonparty-P. Flint Region contended that “the trial court erred by granting summary disposition to Allstate and dismissing Flint Region’s claims for no-fault benefits for performing [P’s] lumbar spinal fusion, because (1) there was evidence supporting its incurred expenses and (2) the reasonableness of the billing was a jury question.” The court agreed. There was “no dispute that Flint Region provided treatment to [P] after the accident, including her surgery.” There was “also no dispute that, after Allstate moved for summary disposition to dismiss Flint Region’s claims for no-fault benefits, Flint Region did not timely present evidence in a formal response to the surgery bill motion for summary disposition.” The court noted that while “Flint Region did not file a response to the surgery bill motion, it argues that the misfiling of its response should not have led to the trial court granting summary disposition regarding the surgery bill because, ultimately, the trial court allowed Flint Region to correct its mistake by filing a supplemental response.” The court agreed. After “the trial court’s instruction, Flint Region filed its supplemental response, which included the initial disclosures, supplementary initial disclosures, a witness list, and a response to the causation summary disposition motion, as exhibits. The disclosures included medical records and billing information for the surgery.” Flint Region asserted “that the evidence presented in its supplemental response created a question of fact it incurred expenses from the surgery.” The court agreed. It found that “evidence created a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Flint Region incurred allowable expenses from [P’s] surgery. Whether these expenses were reasonable or reasonably necessary presents a question of fact, which should be determined by a jury.” Further, it found that “even without consideration of any evidence presented by Flint Region, Allstate’s surgery bill motion presented evidence creating a question of fact as to whether Flint Region incurred allowable expenses.” The court held that to the extent Allstate asserted “Flint Region waived its right to refute the surgery bill motion, this argument is misguided.”