Healthcare provider’s efforts to collect no-fault benefits; Real party in interest; C-Spine Orthopedics, PLLC v Progressive MI Ins Co (C-Spine I & II); Effect of counterassignments

On remand from the Supreme Court, the court held that while plaintiff-healthcare provider (C-Spine) may be a real party in interest in this action for no-fault benefits by virtue of counterassignments, “it was not the real party in interest when it filed its complaint[.]” As in C-Spine II, whether it could still cure that “‘defect in this case in the trial court may be addressed on remand.’” Thus, the court again reversed the trial court’s order granting defendant-insurer’s summary disposition motion, and remanded the case to that court for further proceedings. The “material facts of, and issues presented by, this case” were virtually identical to those in C-Spine I, a decision that was appealed to the Supreme Court, which issued C-Spine II. The “Supreme Court then remanded this case back to” the court for reconsideration in light of C-Spine II. In this case, which had facts materially identical to those of C-Spine II, “C-Spine transferred all of its rights and interests in” an injured driver’s (G) “accounts receivable to third-party factoring companies, so it was not the real party in interest when it filed its complaint. But during the litigation below, C-Spine produced counterassignments in which the factoring companies purported to assign their rights and interests in [G’s] accounts receivable back to C-Spine after this litigation was commenced. If those counterassignments are valid, then C-Spine is the real party in interest in this litigation. Even if valid, however, the existence of the counterassignments alone is not dispositive. As explained in C-Spine II, C-Spine must still file an amended complaint ‘reflecting the counter-assignments or take some other action that would have allowed the trial court to consider their effect.’” As a result, the court remanded the “case to the trial court so that C-Spine can take appropriate action to allow the [trial] court to consider the legal effect of the purported counterassignments.”