No-fault suits offer lawmakers ideal opportunity to act

The latest chapter in the sad saga of Michigan's mishandled 2019 no-fault auto insurance overhaul continues.

Most recently, a federal case in the Eastern District of Michigan, which was brought by a health care provider in Michigan, was unsuccessful in arguing for a higher rate of reimbursement from the insurer.

The health care provider took a position that it had a constitutionally protected rate of return – in effect, a right to profit – from the services it was providing. The state's sweeping reform presented an "unconstitutional taking" of its so-called property interests, the provider argued.

But the federal court found the provider had voluntarily participated in the system. The fact that it had been eligible for a higher rate of reimbursement under a previous version of the statute was insufficient to create a property interest, it said.

The judge called their argument "a slender reed" upon which to rest their claim and dismissed it.

This federal court ruling may be discouraging for about 17,000 Michigan residents with severe and long-term injuries from auto accidents who are still hoping for some relief.

But the case presented in that federal court arena is quite different from the one currently before the Michigan Supreme Court. And that court is still cogitating on oral arguments it heard in March about the state appellate court decision in the case, Andary v. USAA.

In that case, the appeals court found that the changes lawmakers made to health care reimbursements for accident victims can't be applied retroactively to past injuries.

Prior to 2020, Michigan was the only state that required drivers to pay for full personal injury protection insurance. Under that system, it offered catastrophically injured crash survivors unlimited medical benefits.

Then, when the new law took effect in summer 2021, benefits were limited for those suffering catastrophic injury, including a 45%cut in the amount health care providers could reimburse on services not covered under Medicare.

The two plaintiffs in that case, Ellen Andary and Phillip Krueger, sustained traumatic brain injuries in auto accidents prior to 2019 and now require round-the-clock care.

In their case, they claim the new health care limitations shouldn't apply to them because their policies took effect prior to the law's enactment, and that capping reimbursements for their care violates the terms of their insurance contracts at the time they signed them.

Their insurance providers are holding fast to the notion that medical providers are subject to the new cost limitations outlined in the 2019 law. But the appellate court majority sided with Andary and Krueger. That's the good news.

The bad news is the constant appeals that delay any justice in this case.

Now the argument is focused on whether lawmakers intended for the law to be applied retroactively to past auto accident victims who were already receiving more generous medical coverage prior to the 2019 reforms. The legislation was silent on that point.

All of these machinations occurred several years ago. And the state legislature is a different animal today than it was then.

This whole situation could be resolved by one masterful act by lawmakers: Grandfather in those 17,000 or so catastrophically injured people so they receive the level of care they need and were promised by the state.

Hold good on that promise, lawmakers, and you will send a compelling message to your constituents that speaks volumes about integrity.

That's a message that needs sending now more than ever.

What a great opportunity to swing the pendulum of public opinion in a positive direction.

– Traverse City Record Eagle (TNS)