Farrar v. Suburban Mobility Auth. for Reg'l Transp.

• Decision Date: 09 February 2023
• Docket Number: 358872,358884
• Citation: Farrar v. Suburban Mobility Auth. for Reg'l Transp., 358872, 358884 (Mich. App. Feb 09, 2023)
• Parties: MARCEL FARRAR, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SUBURBAN MOBILITY AUTHORITY FOR REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION, also known as SMART, Defendant-Appellant. and FOCUS IMAGING, LLC, Intervening Plaintiff-Appellee, MARCEL FARRAR, Plaintiff-Appellee, and FOCUS IMAGING, LLC, Intervening Plaintiff, v. SUBURBAN MOBILITY AUTHORITY FOR REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION, also known as SMART, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

1

MARCEL FARRAR, Plaintiff-Appellee, and FOCUS IMAGING, LLC, Intervening Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SUBURBAN MOBILITY AUTHORITY FOR REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION, also known as SMART, Defendant-Appellant.

MARCEL FARRAR, Plaintiff-Appellee, and FOCUS IMAGING, LLC, Intervening Plaintiff, v. SUBURBAN MOBILITY AUTHORITY FOR REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION, also known as SMART, Defendant-Appellant.

Nos. 358872, 358884

Court of Appeals of Michigan

February 9, 2023

Wayne Circuit Court LCNo. 20-002192-NF

Before: CAVANAGH, P.J., and K. F. KELLY and GARRETT, JJ.

PER CURIAM

In these consolidated appeals,^[1] in Docket No. 358872, defendant the Suburban Mobility Authority for Regional Transportation appeals by leave granted^[2]the trial court's order denying defendant's motion for summary disposition as to the claims made by intervening plaintiffFocus Imaging, LLC.In Docket No. 358884, defendant appeals by leave granted^[3]the trial court's order granting in part and denying in part defendant's motion for partial summary disposition as to claims related to services provided by nonparty medical providers who obtained assignments from plaintiffMarcel Farrar.Because we conclude that the trial court erred when it denied defendant's motions for summary disposition, we reverse and remand.

I.BASIC FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The underlying facts of the case are largely not in dispute.On February 13, 2019, plaintiff was riding as a passenger on a bus operated by defendant.Plaintiff was injured after another car hit the bus.As a result of the accident, plaintiff sought treatment from a number of medical providers and, in connection with doing so, executed assignments of benefits in exchange for receiving such treatment.As relevant to this appeal, plaintiff executed assignments to Focus Imaging, LLC, C-Spine Ortho, Allied Medical, Assure Neuromonitoring, and Integra Lab Solutions.

On February 11, 2020, plaintiff filed a complaint to recover personal injury protection (PIP) benefits for injuries he sustained to his back, head, arms, legs, and shoulders.Focus Imaging moved to intervene in the case on February 11, 2021, asserting that it provided services to plaintiff which were recoverable under the no-fault act but defendant refused to pay, which the trial court granted.In Focus Imaging's intervening complaint, attached to its motion, it claimed it provided plaintiff with medical services attributable to the accident totaling $14,996.61.In support of its claim, Focus Imaging attached as Exhibit A to its complaint a "Health Insurance Claim Form," dated July 30, 2019, showing a total charge of $14,996.61 for services provided on March 6, 2019

Defendant subsequently moved for summary disposition as to Focus Imaging's intervening claims, as well as plaintiff's claims related to C-Spine Ortho, Allied Medical, Assure Neuromonitoring, and Integra Lab Solutions.According to defendant, it was entitled to summary disposition because Focus Imaging's claims were barred by the one-year-back rule because Focus Imaging could not relate its intervening complaint back to the date of plaintiff's complaint.Defendant also asserted that plaintiff's claims associated with providers to whom he already executed assignments were barred because plaintiff was not the real party in interest with respect to those claims.

The trial court denied defendant's motions.With respect to Focus Imaging, the court concluded that its claims could relate back to the date of plaintiff's complaint.The court also held that because defendant had notice of Focus Imaging's claims within one year, defendant could not invoke the one-year-back rule as a shield to liability.The trial court also rejected defendant's argument that once plaintiff executed assignments to medical providers, those providers became the real parties in interest with respect to those claims.These interlocutory appeals followed.

II.STANDARDS OF REVIEW

This Court reviews de novo a trial court's decision on a motion for summary disposition.Mich Head & Spine Institute PC v. Auto-Owners Ins Co, 338 Mich.App. 721, 725; 980 N.W.2d 567(2021), lv den___ Mich___;971 N.W.2d 217(2022).Defendant moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7), (8), and (10).When deciding a motion under MCR 2.116(C)(7), this Court"must accept as true the allegations of the complaint unless contradicted by the parties' documentary submissions."Allstate Ins Co v. State Farm Mut Auto Ins Co, 321 Mich.App. 543, 550-551; 909 N.W.2d 945(2017)."[A]party moving for summary disposition under Subrule (C)(7) may support the motion with affidavits, depositions, admissions, or other admissible documentary evidence, which the reviewing court must consider."Id. at 551.

A motion under MCR 2.116(C)(8) tests the sufficiency of the complaint based only on the pleadings.Esurance Prop &Cas Ins Co v. Mich. Assigned Claims Plan, 507 Mich. 498, 508; 968 N.W.2d 482(2021)."A motion under MCR 2.116(C)(8) tests the legal sufficiency of a claim based on the factual allegations in the complaint."Id.(quotation marks and citation omitted)."A motion under MCR 2.116(C)(8) may only be granted when a claim is so clearly unenforceable that no factual development could possibly justify recovery."Id.(quotation marks and citation omitted).

Under MCR 2.116(C)(10), this Court considers the evidence submitted in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party.Fasho v. Liberty Mut Ins Co, 333 Mich.App. 612, 616; 963 N.W.2d 695(2020)."Where the proffered evidence fails to establish a genuine issue regarding any material fact, the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law."Id.(quotation marks and citation omitted).

Questions concerning the proper interpretation and application of statutes are also reviewed de novo.Esurance, 507 Mich. at 508."[C]ourts must interpret statutes in a way that gives effect to every word, phrase, and clause in a statute and avoid an interpretation that would render any part of the statute surplusage or nugatory."Id. at 508-509(quotation marks and citation omitted; alteration in original).

III.DOCKET NO. 358872

Defendant argues that the trial court erred when it denied defendant's motion for summary disposition because Focus Imaging's claims were barred by the one-year-back rule.According to defendant, Focus Imaging filed its intervening complaint more than one year after it provided services to plaintiff.Thus, defendant argues that under MCL 500.3145(2), it was entitled to summary disposition as to Focus Imaging's claims.We agree.

Under MCL 500.3145(2), a "claimant may not recover benefits for any portion of the loss incurred more than 1 year before the date on which the action was commenced.""The one-year-back rule is designed to limit the amount of benefits recoverable under the no-fault act to those losses occurring no more than one year before an action is brought."Joseph v. Auto Club Ins Ass'n, 491 Mich. 200, 202; 815 N.W.2d 412(2012).

Focus Imaging treated plaintiff on March 6, 2019, approximately three weeks after the automobile accident.Under the one-year-back rule, Focus Imaging was required to file its complaint by March 6, 2020, to ensure its lawsuit could proceed.However, Focus Imaging did not file its intervening complaint until February 11, 2021, almost two years after the accident.Accordingly, under the express language of the one-year-back rule, Focus Imaging is barred under MCL 500.3145(2) from recovering any benefits that it incurred before February 11, 2020.

However, plaintiff argues that because he timely filed his complaint on February 11, 2020, Focus Imaging's complaint is also timely because Focus Imaging stands in plaintiff's shoes by virtue of the assignment.According to plaintiff, as the two parties share the same interests, the addition of Focus Imaging as an intervening plaintiff does not prevent Focus Imaging from invoking the relation-back doctrine.

Generally speaking, the relation-back doctrine does not apply to the addition of new parties.Miller v. Chapman Contracting, 477 Mich. 102, 105; 730 N.W.2d 462(2007).However, plaintiff argues that because he and Focus Imaging have the same interests and the claim arises out of the same transaction or occurrence, Focus Imaging can invoke the relation-back doctrine.

In Lakeland Neurocare Ctrs v. Everest Nat'l Ins Co, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued October 8, 2019(Docket No. 340346),^[4] however, we rejected the notion that for purposes of the one-year-back rule, the addition of the injured claimant as an intervenor to the medical provider's lawsuit related back to that original suit.In that case, the injured claimant sought to intervene, which the trial court granted.Lakeland Neurocare Ctrs, unpub op at 3.The trial court also determined that the injured claimant's intervening complaint related back to the date of the medical provider's complaint.Id.

On appeal, we concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it granted the claimant's motion to intervene.Id. at 12.However, we also determined that the trial court erred when it concluded that the intervening complaint related back:

Gordon is clearly a different party than plaintiffs.She is not seeking to add new claims or defenses, MCR 2.118(D), but rather, assert the same claims as plaintiffs, but as a different party.Therefore, her claims would not relate back to the date of plaintiffs' complaint.Because Gordon's claims would not relate back to the date of the filing of the original complaint, she could only claim benefits dating one year back from the date that she filed her intervening complaint under MCL 500.3145, which was September 21, 2017.[Id. at 15.]

The same is true here.Focus Imaging is a...