Hearsay; Costs; MCR 2.625; Attorney fees under MCL 500.3148(1); Statutory interest under MCL 600.6013(8)

In these consolidated appeals concerning the rate of attendant-care fees to which plaintiff-Centria Home Rehabilitation was entitled, in Docket No. 365338 the court affirmed the trial court’s judgment for plaintiff. In Docket No. 365313, it affirmed in part and reversed in part the order denying plaintiff’s motion for costs, statutory interest, and attorney fees, and remanded, directing the trial court to “order statutory interest in accordance with MCL 600.6013(8).” In Docket No. 365338, defendant-insurer argued that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting hearsay testimony from plaintiff’s controller (R). The court held that R’s testimony as to the Optum Health Customized Fee Analyzer “publication did not constitute hearsay. [R] explained that he knew that plaintiff’s rate was reasonable because ‘we always hover’ in the 60% to 65% range of fees based on his review of the Optum publication. [R] did not testify regarding an out-of-court statement.” Rather, his testimony as to “the Optum publication was limited to his review of the publication as it pertained specifically to plaintiff’s rate, and [R] did not quote the publication itself. [R’s] testimony that plaintiff’s rate was reasonable because his review of the Optum publication showed that the rate fell in the 60th to 65th percentile did not constitute hearsay.” In Docket No. 365313, plaintiff first argued “that the trial court erred by denying its request for costs under MCR 2.625.” But the court held that plaintiff’s “single reference to MCR 2.625 in its motion was insufficient to address the merits of its claim. In light of plaintiff’s failure to provide any legal argument and citation to authority in support of its request for costs, and its failure to provide a bill of costs, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by declining to award costs under MCR 2.625.” Plaintiff also argued “that the trial court erred by denying its request for attorney fees under MCL 500.3148(1).” The court concluded that because the evidence showed “a bona fide factual uncertainty regarding the reasonable rate of attendant-care fees, the trial court properly denied” this motion. But the court agreed with plaintiff that the trial court erred in “declining to award statutory interest under MCL 600.6013(8).”