Historical Case Report: Washtenaw County’s 2022 Fee-Cap Ruling

The firm previously reported a September 29, 2022 Washtenaw County Circuit Court opinion by Chief Judge Carol Kuhnke addressing the constitutionality of the fee schedule in MCL 500.3157(7). The report described an equal-protection ruling favorable to the accident victim.

Read the report in its procedural and historical context

A trial-court ruling in an identified case is not, by itself, a statewide holding that every fee restriction is invalid. The governing appellate decisions, statutory provision, dates, and particular services need review before relying on it in another dispute.

The later Michigan Supreme Court Andary opinion addresses retroactive application of challenged restrictions to the contractual rights at issue there. That analysis is distinct from assuming all prospective fee restrictions were struck down.

What a current billing dispute needs

• The policy and injury dates and the applicable statutory version.
• The service, provider, service date, bill, and medical support.
• The insurer’s written reason for a reduction or denial.
• The calculation or fee provision the insurer says applies.
• Submission, payment, and denial dates relevant to remedies and timing.

Use the historical report as context

The original date remains part of this case report. It should not be refreshed into an announcement of a new ruling merely because the article is edited or republished.

See the current dispute framework and PIP payment disputes. Our no-fault practice can evaluate the rules governing an individual bill.

Talk with Logeman & Iafrate

Request a free consultation or call (734) 994-0200 to discuss your situation with our Ann Arbor office. Bring the relevant records and any insurer correspondence. Advice about your claim depends on the facts, coverage, and applicable deadlines.

General information only; this article is not legal advice for an individual case.

Does this trial-court report invalidate every fee cap today?

No. Current authority and the particular claim must be examined.

Is Andary the same as a universal prospective invalidation?

No. Its retroactivity analysis must be distinguished from that claim.