In this published opinion, the Michigan Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s decision, which would have allowed a medical service provider (Michigan Head and Spine) to recover against State Farm for services rendered to plaintiff, who was injured in an auto accident, because the plaintiff signed a release with State Farm in which she agreed not to seek recovery for future medical services provided.
The plaintiff was injured in an auto accident. Â She received personal insurance protection (PIP) benefits, including medical services, which were paid by State Farm. Â She settled with State Farm and executed a release, in which she discharged and/or disclaimed any future PIP benefits related to treatment received for her injuries. Â After she signed the release, plaintiff treated with the Michigan Head and Spine, who then sought recovery from State Farm.
The trial court denied a summary motion by State Farm and allowed MH&S to proceed against it on theories of contract and recovery of no-fault PIP benefits. Â The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that Plaintiff’s release bound MH&S from seeking recovery on any theory.
This is a published opinion, which illustrates the importance to medical service providers of affirming the availability of insurance before treating a plaintiff. Â The ruling of the case applies both to no-fault insurers, and other insurers, such as workers’ compensation carriers, that might be liable for payment for medical services on the basis of an injury.
Read the opinion here: Â Michigan Head and Spine v. State Farm