Michigan Supreme Court Provides Relief to Catastrophically Injured Individuals
In a recent ruling, the Michigan Supreme Court has determined that major changes in the state’s car insurance system do not apply to individuals who were catastrophically injured before a 2019 law took effect. This decision comes as a relief to thousands of people who rely on long-term benefits for their care.
Unfortunately, the ruling came too late for Brian Woodward, who was paralyzed in the 1980s and frequently voiced concerns about the law’s impact on his care. Woodward passed away at the age of 64, leaving behind a legacy of advocacy for those affected by the new legislation.
The new state law introduced a fee schedule and reimbursement cap, which caused significant challenges for the 18,000 individuals already receiving benefits. These individuals were forced to scramble for care providers, as many struggled to find suitable options under the new regulations.
The Supreme Court’s decision emphasized the importance of preserving contractual rights to ongoing benefits, especially when lawmakers did not explicitly state an intent to strip them away. Advocates for crash survivors hail this ruling as a significant victory, crediting those who fought alongside them in the legal battle.
Justice Elizabeth Welch wrote the majority opinion, which was supported by other Democratic justices and Chief Justice Elizabeth Clement, a Republican. The decision highlighted the need to balance the reduction in insurance rates, the original goal of the law, with the potential negative impact on certain types of care.
The catastrophically injured population includes former Detroit Red Wings hockey star Vladimir Konstantinov, who suffers from severe brain damage due to a crash in 1997 and requires round-the-clock care. This ruling ensures that individuals like Konstantinov continue to receive the necessary support and assistance they need.
However, the new law has posed challenges for home care providers, such as Arcadia Home Care & Staffing, who have struggled with outstanding balances resulting from the changes. On the other hand, the Insurance Alliance of Michigan, an industry trade group, believes that this ruling will lead to overcharging for medical care.
Not everyone agrees with the Supreme Court’s decision. In a dissenting opinion, Justice David Viviano argued that the majority’s ruling undermines efforts to reduce costs and make insurance more affordable.
Overall, this ruling by the Michigan Supreme Court provides much-needed relief to catastrophically injured individuals who were facing uncertainty and challenges due to the changes in the state’s car insurance system. While the ruling may have its critics, it represents a significant victory for crash survivors and their ongoing access to essential care.
