The Brady team recently had a Motion for Summary Disposition granted in a No-Fault Provider case. Plaintiff alleged it was owed over $100,000.00 based upon physical therapy bills. After extensive discovery, it was learned that the Claimant was involved in two separate accidents and had treated with several different physical therapists and chiropractors for both of these accidents.

As this case neared trial, Plaintiff filed a witness list and only listed two medical experts: (1) the treating physical therapist and (2) the physical therapist’s brother who is a chiropractor. In response, several Motions in Limine were filed by the defense, which argued that neither a physical therapist nor a chiropractor are able to write a prescription for physical therapy services under the Michigan Public Health Code. In other words, we took the position that these two individuals should not be allowed to offer any sort of causation testimony at the time of trial because a physical therapist cannot make a medical diagnosis and a chiropractor’s ability to render a diagnosis is limited to those injuries that can be treated with chiropractic care (i.e. subluxation of the spine). The Court agreed and the Motions in Limine were granted, severely limiting Plaintiff’s ability to prove its case.

Following the Court’s rulings on the Motions in Limine, we requested leave to file a Motion for Summary Disposition (a request for dismissal) and the Court allowed it. In the Motion for Summary Disposition, we asserted that without the appropriate expert medical testimony, Plaintiff was unable to provide any objective medical evidence that an injury exists let alone whether this injury was related to a motor vehicle accident. It was also argued that Plaintiff lacked the appropriate expert medical testimony to prove that the treatment provided was reasonable and necessary. Therefore, the defense took the position that Plaintiff could not provide the requisite evidence to meet its burden of proof under the No-Fault Act.

In response, Plaintiff argued that the No-Fault Act required a lower burden of proof for causation and alleged that it could meet this burden of proof at the time of trial. However, under this standard, Plaintiff’s claims still failed. Plaintiff failed to identify any objective medical evidence to support the services rendered and the rulings on the Motions in Limine severely limited the testimony of Plaintiff’s expert physical therapist and chiropractor. Therefore, Plaintiff did not have any evidence to support the claim that it provided reasonable and necessary treatment, which was related to an injury suffered in a motor vehicle accident. The Court agreed and dismissed Plaintiff’s claims with prejudice.

Any information included here or through our website is presented solely for general informational purposes and is not in any way intended as legal advice, is not a substitute for getting actual legal advice from an attorney, and should not be acted upon as legal advice without first seeking qualified professional counsel specific to your needs and situation. Additionally, by providing this general information and the information on our website, no attorney client relationship is created.

Kitch PIP Team Obtains Dismissal of Suit for Lack of Medical Evidence

Key Contacts

Related Services