United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR
BORMAN PAUL D. BORMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
action arises from a claim for Personal Injury Protection
benefits, assigned to Defendant under Michigan law, which was
submitted in connection with an August 2013 auto accident
involving non-party LaDawn Jones. Plaintiff filed this action
seeking reimbursement for medical expenses that it incurred
in treating Jones during 2014 and 2015.
before the Court is Defendant's Motion for Summary
Judgment. Owing largely to a significant admission by
Plaintiff that it has no evidence to support a causal
connection between the accident and Jones' injuries, the
Court will GRANT Defendant's Motion. The Court has
determined that there is no need for oral argument and will
decide the matter based on the parties' written
submissions. See E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(f).
Jones was involved in a car accident on August 25, 2013.
Since there was no auto insurance policy that covered the
accident, Jones made a claim with Michigan's Automobile
Insurance Placement Facility, which in turn assigned her
claim to Defendant. (See ECF No. 12, Def.'s Mot.
Summ. J. at 3.)
treated Jones on various occasions between March 2014 and
March 2015. The total amount billed by Plaintiff during that
period was $93, 592.93. (See ECF No. 12, Ex. B,
Orthopedic PC Billing Statement at 3.) Defendant issued two
payments to Plaintiff, in September and November of 2014
respectively, which totaled $676.35. (See ECF No.
12, Ex. C, Allstate Payment Letters.)
February 23, 2015, Plaintiff filed this four-count lawsuit in
the Circuit Court of Wayne County. (ECF No. 1, Notice of
Removal, Ex. A, February 23, 2015 Summons and Complaint.) The
Complaint had one exhibit attached: a list of claims totaling
$35, 731.00. (See Id. at 8.)
April and May of 2015, Defendant received bills based on
treatments of Jones from a company named Computerized Joint
Surgery, LLC. Some of those bills were for the same
treatments on the same dates that had been billed previously
by Plaintiff. (See ECF No. 12, Ex. D,
Computerized Joint Surgery LLC Bills; ECF No. 12, Ex. E,
Orthopedic PC Bills.) Defendant points out that in some
instances, they both bill for treatments occurring at
different locations on the same date. (See ECF No.
12 at 4.) Dr. Muhammad Awaisi, Plaintiff's owner,
testified that the duplicative billing was a mistake, likely
owing to an administrative error. (ECF No. 12, Ex. F,
Deposition of Muhammad Awaisi at 39:11-42:20.) Dr. Awaisi
also testified that according to Plaintiff's records,
Jones informed Dr. Sam Hakki-the physician employed by
Plaintiff that was responsible for her treatment-that she had
suffered two falls in the time between the car accident in
August 2013 and the beginning of her treatment in March 2014.
(Awaisi Dep. 103:15-24.)
8, 2015, Defendant received a billing statement from
Plaintiff, dated May 20, 2015, which indicated the $95,
592.93 balance mentioned above. (ECF No. 1 at 2-3.) The next
day, Defendant removed the action to this Court. (ECF No. 1.)
Nearly six months later, on December 4, 2015, the Court
issued an Order for Plaintiff to show cause as to why the
case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. (ECF
No. 2.) The Court vacated the Order a few days later (ECF No.
4), and on the same day, Defendant filed its Answer to the
Complaint. (ECF No. 3.)
to the Scheduling Order issued on February 3, 2016, the
cutoff date for fact discovery was set for August 2, 2016,
and the final date for the filing of dispositive motions was
set for October 31. (See ECF No. 7 at 1.) During
that period, the Court issued two Stipulated Orders
compelling participation in discovery by Plaintiffs: one
compelling responses to Defendant's Second
Interrogatories and Answers to Interrogatories and Request
for Production of Documents (ECF No. 9), and another two
weeks later compelling Plaintiff to produce two individuals
for deposition by Defendant (ECF No. 10). That period also
saw two attorney substitutions for Plaintiff: one in March
(before the two discovery Orders, and about a month after the
Scheduling Order) (ECF No. 8), and one in June (ECF No. 11).
2, 2016, Defendant served Plaintiff with its Third Request
for Admissions and Production of Documents. (ECF No. 12, Ex.
G, Defendant's Third Request for Admissions and
Production of Documents.) Defendant requested five
admissions, quoted in full below:
1. Admit Plaintiff has no evidence to causally relate Ms.
Jones' condition to the August 2013 motor vehicle
2. Admit Plaintiff has no evidence to refute the fact that
Ms. Jones' condition may have been caused by superseding
intervening slip and fall incidents.
3. Admit Plaintiff has no evidence that Dr. Hakki rendered
any treatment or services to Ms. Jones between January 2015
and March 2015 at Plaintiffs Clinton Township office.
4. Admit Plaintiff has no evidence that Ms. Jones received
any treatment or services at Greater Lakes Ambulatory
Surgical Center ...