Attorney Scott J. Pawlak obtained summary disposition on behalf of a no-fault insurer for charges for chiropractor-referred MRIs. The Court agreed with the insurer that, because Michigan’s No-Fault Act did not include MRIs within the scope of “chiropractic care” as of January 1, 2009, no-fault insurers are not required to reimburse for MRIs that have been ordered by a chiropractor. The Court further noted that, because the performance or ordering of an MRI is beyond the scope of chiropractic care, there was no way that such testing could be deemed a “reasonably necessary service.”

Attorneys Kari L. Melkonian and Lindsey A. Peck won summary disposition in favor of a snow-removal company in a slip-and-fall case. The Court dismissed the plaintiff’s claims against the defendant, holding that the defendant didn’t owe the plaintiff a separate duty. The Court also granted the snow-removal contractor’s motion for summary disposition on a third-party complaint filed against its subcontractor. The Court found that, under the terms of the snow-removal subcontract, the subcontractor owed the contractor and property owner both defense and indemnification.

Collins Einhorn attorneys Kevin P. Moloughney and Patrick J. Walbridge won summary disposition on a third-party auto-negligence claim, based on the plaintiff’s failure to prove that he suffered an objectively manifested impairment of an important body function. The Court agreed that the medical records relied on by the plaintiff only demonstrated subjective complaints, which were insufficient to meet the serious impairment threshold imposed by the Michigan No-Fault Act.