O'Neil Wallace & Doyle, PC

A Return to Tolling: 

The Court of Appeals leaves PIP Insurers on Guard About Denials

Name: Encompass Healthcare, PLLC v. Citizens Insurance Company

Court: Michigan Court of Appeals

Issued: November 17, 2022

INTRODUCTION

The Michigan Court of Appeals recently issued an opinion in which they analyzed the 2019 Amendments to the No-Fault Act to reinstate the equitable tolling of the one-year-back rule that had been previously discarded in Devillers v Auto Club Ins. Ass'n, 473 Mich. 562, 702 N.W.2d 539 (2005). In summary, the Court held that a formal denial of a provider's request for reimbursement is required to prevent tolling of the one-year-back rule found in MCL 500.3145.

ANALYSIS

In reaching its decision, the Court analyzed the 2019 Amendments to MCL 500.3145, which included the addition of the phrase "until the date the insurer formally denies the claim" to the limitations provision of that statute. Prior to that amendment, Devillers v Auto Club Ins. Ass'n, 473 Mich. 562, 702 N.W.2d 539 (2005) had discarded judicial tolling of the No-Fault Act's One-Year-Back Rule.

Encompass Healthcare, PLLC argued that Devillers was no longer applicable after the 2019 Amendments, because of the legislature's inclusion of tolling language. The Court readily accepted this argument and superseded the Devillers decision, enacting a return to the pre-Devillers system of tolling the one-year-back rule.

The Court then turned to an analysis of the phrase "formal denial" in the context of the statute. It adopted a definition that was espoused by several pre-Devillers opinions, holding that a formal denial need not be in writing to be effective, but it must be both explicit and direct.

The Court then applied its new rulings to the circumstances of the dispute between Encompass Healthcare, PLLC and Citizens Insurance. In doing so, they held that the boiler plate language contained in Citizen's Explanation of Review ("EORs") documents was insufficient to constitute a formal denial. The majority of the EORs contained only a statement which read:

This bill has been evaluated against the prevailing billing practices for healthcare providers within your geographic area. The reimbursement rate may therefore be different than the amount billed.

Please be advised that this bill may have been adjusted pursuant to the provisions of any applicable statute or any applicable policy of insurance. Based upon the adjustment of the bill pursuant to any applicable statute or any applicable policy of insurance, the payment for this bill may different that the amount billed.

The Court found that the wavering and broad language of the EORs was insufficient to put a provider on notice that their claim for reimbursement had been formally denied, and that a more explicit and direct notation on an EOR would be needed to convey a "formal denial" as contemplated by MCL 500.3145.

The Court refrained from placing any other limitations on what a formal denial must include to be sufficient. For example, it did not require insurers to send a formal denial letter or other such notice separate from an EOR statement. Rather, it simply required an insurer give notice to a provider that is both explicit and direct. Insurers are free to carry out this requirement in any way they see fit under the Encompass decision.

The take-away from the Encompass decision is that insurers should be careful to ensure that explicit and direct denial language is included in any EORs issued to providers, or to otherwise ensure that a denial is tendered to a provider if the protections of the one-year-back rule are to apply.

We will continue to monitor new caselaw interpreting the 2019 Amendments to the No-Fault Act and the progeny of cases that are sure to follow.

 

  • NAME: Matthew Burchard v Treetops Acquisition Company, LLC COURT / JUDGE: Otsego County Circuit Court; Michigan Court of Appeals ATTORNEYS: Plaintiff: Gregg Herman of Gregg E. Herman, P.C. & Mark...
    Published: 7/15/2024
  • Case Name: Andary v. USAA Casualty Insurance Company et. al. Court: Michigan Supreme Court Issued: July 31, 2023 INTRODUCTION On July 31, 2023, the Michigan Supreme Court issued its 5-2 decision...
    Published: 8/1/2023
  • The End of Open and Obvious as We Know it: Lugo Overruled Name: Kandil-Elsayed v F & E Oil, Inc. & Pinksy v Kroger Co. of Mich Court: Michigan Supreme Court Issued: July 28, 2023 INTRODUCTION...
    Published: 8/1/2023
  • Name: Andary v. USAA Casualty Insurance Company et. al. Court: Michgian Court of Appeals Issued: August 25, 2022 INTRODUCTION The Michigan Court of Appeals recently issued an opinion in Andary v....
    Published: 8/29/2022
  • IME Conditions may Include Video Recording CASE INFORMATION Name: Schaumann- Beltran v. Gemmete Court/Judge: Michigan Supreme Court – Order on Application for Leave to Appeal. Issued: May 13, 2022...
    Published: 6/23/2022
  • MICHIGAN NO-FAULT UPDATE: CLAIMS HANDLING AFTER AN IME Name: RAMIREZ C. HOME-OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY Court/Judge: Michigan Court of Appeals, unpublished Per Curiam Opinion of Judge Boonstra, Judge...
    Published: 3/14/2022
  • Premises Liability Update: The Uncertain Future of Lugo CASE INFORMATION Name: AHLAM KANDIL-ELSAYED v. F&E OIL, INC. Court/Judge: Michigan Supreme Court – Order on Application for Leave to...
    Published: 2/9/2022
  • THE RECREATIONAL LAND USE ACT DOES NOT EXTEND TO MAN-MADE CHANGES TO LAND CASE INFORMATION Name: DOREEN ROTT v. ARTHUR ROTT Court/Judge: Michigan Supreme Court – Opinion by Justice WELCH and...
    Published: 8/28/2021
  • PREMISES LIABILIY: NO STATUTORY CLAIMS FOR NON LESSEES CASE INFORMATION Name: Walker v. Hela Mgmt, LLC Court/ Judges: Michigan Court of Appeals –Unpublished Per Curium Opinion by Judges...
    Published: 8/28/2021
  • Open and Obvious Hazards While Entering the Workplace may be Effectively Unavoidable CASE INFORMATION Name: ESTATE OF DONNA LIVINGS v SAGE'S INVESTMENT GROUP, LLC Court/ Judge: Michigan Supreme...
    Published: 7/9/2021
  • PIP Update: Supreme Court Sets Limitations on Insurer's Remedy of Rescission for Post-Application Fraud CASE INFORMATION Name: Meemic Ins. Co. v. Fortson et al. Court/Judge: Michigan Supreme Court...
    Published: 9/18/2020
  • Replacement Cost Does Not Include the Diminution in Value for PPI Claims under the No Fault Act CASE INFORMATION Name: JF Warren, LLC et al. v. Consolidated Ins. Co. , Docket No. 347762 Court/Judge:...
    Published: 7/30/2020
  • No Business Interruption Coverage During COVID-19 Shutdowns CASE INFORMATION Name: Gavrilides Management Co. v Michigan Insurance Co. , Docket No. 20-000258-CB Court/Judge: 30 th Circuit Court,...
    Published: 7/30/2020
  • Michigan Updates to Commerical General Liability Coverage "Accident" is expanded to encompass the insured's work damaged by a subcontractor CASE INFORMATION Name: Skanska USA Bldg. Inc. v. M.A.P....
    Published: 7/24/2020
  • Tobin Dust joins O'Neill, Wallace & Doyle, P.C. We are pleased to announce that Tobin Dust of Dust & Campbell, P.C., will be joining our firm effective November 1, 2019. The move will provide...
    Published: 9/26/2019
  • THE GOOD AND THE BAD… AS WE SEE IT FOR THE 2019 AMENDMENT TO THE MICHIGAN NO-FAULT ACT INTRODUCTION The newly amended No-Fault Act made significant changes to Michigan auto-insurance requirements....
    Published: 7/31/2019
  • Negligence (Minors) Update-- " Child's Play ": Court of Appeals Upholds the Reasonable 13-year-old Standard Set Forth in Ray v. Swager. Abuaita v Abuaita Introduction In a negligence action,minors...
    Published: 6/13/2019
  • Premises Liability Update--Court of Appeals Expands Defenses for Landlords to Statutory Slip-and-Fall Claims Y ork v Berger Realty Group, Inc. Introduction The Open and Obvious Doctrine is not a...
    Published: 6/13/2019
  • No-Fault Update—Mayor of Detroit Pursues Action to Declare the Michigan No-Fault Act Unconstitutional Duggan v. McPharlin Introduction Detroit Mayor Mike Duggan filed an action to have the...
    Published: 4/26/2019
  • No-Fault Update--The Michigan Court of Appeals Reviews Voluntary Payments of an Insurer as Admissions of an Injury Ross v Dyment , Dkt. No. 341273 (Mich Ct. App. March 14, 2019) Introduction...
    Published: 4/18/2019
  • No-Fault Update—The Michigan Court of Appeals Reviews Balance Bills and Fraud in Personal Injury Protection ("PIP") Claims The Michigan Court of Appeals recently issued two opinions impacting...
    Published: 3/15/2019