PIP benefits; In-home health care services; Central Home Health Care Servs, Inc v Progressive MI Ins Co; Medicare; MCL 500.3157(15)(f); Central Health Care Services, Inc. (CHHCS)

In these consolidated appeals, the court concluded that consistent with Central Home Health Care, the trial courts erred, so it reversed and remanded the various judgments against the insurers in all the cases before it. Defendants (collectively the insurers) challenged “various trial courts’ rejection of [their] position that MCL 500.3157(2)(a) governs” plaintiff-CHHCS’s recovery of in-home health care services it provided to the insureds. “In each of the consolidated cases, the services provided by CHHCS to the insurers’ insureds were covered by Medicare’s prospective payment system. All the services at issue were provided between [7/1/021 and 7/2/22], so CHHCS’s reimbursement is restricted to 200% of the amount payable under Medicare pursuant to MCL 500.3157(2)(a).” Thus, the court reversed “every order denying the insurers’ motions for partial summary disposition and” remanded. In doing so, however, the court noted, “as we stated in Central Home Health Care, that the insurers’ entitlement to partial summary disposition is confined to the determination that MCL 500.3157(2)(a) governs all the consolidated cases. To the extent that the insurers ask for judgments or declarations limiting CHHCS’s recovery to a specified amount, the parties presented conflicting evidence about the amounts payable by Medicare with regard to CHHCS’s claims, thereby creating genuine issues of material fact that preclude a dispositive ruling concerning the amounts CHHCS may recover under MCL 500.3157(2)(a).”