The No-Fault Act (NFA); Healthcare provider’s claims for personal protection insurance (PIP) benefits; Appellate jurisdiction; Timeliness of a claim of appeal; Direct cause of action under MCL 500.3112; Centria Home Rehab, LLC v Allstate Ins Co (Centria I & II); Admission of exhibits; Hearsay; MRE 803(4) exception; Alleged violation of MRE 408 & 409; Introduction of the partial payments or payments of PIP benefits; Chouman v Home Owners Ins Co; Motion for attorney fees under MCL 500.3148(1); Beach v State Farm Mut Auto Ins Co

In these consolidated appeals, the court held in defendant-insurer’s appeal that plaintiff-home healthcare provider had standing to seek to recover unpaid charges from defendant “in a direct cause of action under the version of MCL 500.3112 in effect following the 2019” NFA amendments. It also rejected defendant’s argument that the trial court erred in admitting several of plaintiff’s exhibits. Finally, in plaintiff’s appeal, the court held that the trial court did not err “in denying its request for attorney fees under MCL 500.3148(1).” Plaintiff provided attendant care and nursing services to defendant’s insured (L) after a car crash. As an initial matter, the court found no merit in defendant’s jurisdictional challenge based on the timeliness of plaintiff’s claim of appeal. As to defendant’s argument “that plaintiff did not have standing to pursue a direct cause of action against” it to recover unpaid charges, under Centria I, the Michigan Supreme Court specifically rejected this “argument shortly after briefing completed in this case. In lieu of granting appeal, [it] reversed Centria I and held that ‘[t]he 2019 amendment to MCL 500.3112 applied “to products, services, or accommodations provided after the effective date of this amendatory act.”’” Turning to defendant’s evidentiary challenges, citing Chouman, it claimed that MRE 408 and “409 prohibited the introduction of the partial payments or payments of PIP benefits.” But the court determined that “Chouman does not stand as authority for the blanket inadmissibility of partial PIP benefit payments.” In addition, the court noted that the “evidence of defendant’s partial payments was introduced to show only that defendant had not made full payment, rather than to establish liability.” It also raised a hearsay challenge to an RN’s note documenting a doctor’s verbal order as to L’s treatment. But the court concluded the trial court’s finding that the RN’s “note was admitted into evidence to establish the physician-authority for her actions found support in the record, and the [trial] court did not err in concluding that the record did not amount to inadmissible hearsay.” As to plaintiff’s appeal, the court found that “the trial court did not commit reversible error in determining that defendant rebutted the presumption that its decision to decline to pay the full charged amount for nursing and attendant care services was unreasonable.” Affirmed in all respects.