The Michigan Court of Appeals has affirmed that a Michigan car accident victim is entitled to judgment in her favor in the amount of $173,703.46. In 2002, the car accident victim sustained injuries in a Michigan automobile accident. She was discharged from the hospital to a residential brain injury rehabilitation institute, where she spent three months before being transferred to the Ann Arbor Rehabilitation Center (AARC). State Farm provided the plaintiff’s no-fault automobile insurance, and paid for her treatment at AARC until May 2004, when it discontinued payments to AARC. The plaintiff then retained a Michigan car accident lawyer and filed suit, seeking recovery of allowable expenses incurred after May 2004. On August 29, 2006, a jury returned a verdict in her favor.
The car accident victim then filed another auto accident lawsuit, alleging that State Farm refused to pay for services provided by AARC as of September 1, 2006. State Farm argued that that the trial court erred by relying on the judgment in the prior auto accident lawsuit to establish a future claim for no-fault benefits. The court of appeals disagreed:
“This case is essentially a continuation of an established lawsuit. Both cases involve the same parties, same medical provider, and same expense once again being denied by State Farm. A review of plaintiff’s claims in both the first action and the instant action reveals that they are based on the same factual allegations. In the first action, the parties actually litigated and the jury actually determined the issues of the nature and extent of plaintiff’s injuries. The jury determined that plaintiff had a brain injury and that she needed treatment. The jury in the first action also determined that the treatment provided by AARC was reasonable and necessary, and decided the issue of damages for allowable expenses for claims up until the time of the verdict. Determination of these issues was essential to resolution of plaintiff’s claim for no-fault benefits, and the issues decided by the jury are issues necessary for plaintiff to prevail on her claim here. The present lawsuit is seeking further benefit installments for the same benefits and the same medical expenses at issue in the first lawsuit. The expense not being paid is for treatment at AARC, the same facility providing the same care. There are no new causes of action or theories plead, and the case involves the same defendant cutting off the same benefits litigated previously.
The Michigan Court of Appeals added that, although the jury made no determination regarding the reasonableness and necessity of future benefits, the car accident victim had presented medical evidence that neither diagnosis nor her need for the services being provided by AARC had changed since the jury rendered its verdict in August 2006.
To read the full opinion, click here.
If you have suffered injuries from a Michigan car, motorcycle, or truck accident, or if your insurance carrier is refusing to pay you benefits like in the case above, then it is imperative that you speak with a specialized Michigan car accident lawyer immediately to learn about your legal rights. Set up a free legal consultation to learn how much your case is worth.
