United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
ELIZABETH A. STAFFORD U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN
PART DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT  AND
DENYING DEFENDANT'S REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS
J. TARNOW SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
being hit by a car on the night of September 5, 2015,
Plaintiff DeSeon Dean filed a claim for No-Fault Personal
Injury Protection (“PIP”) Benefits with the
Michigan Assigned Claims Plan (“MACP”). The MACP
assigned Plaintiff's claim to Defendant Allstate
Insurance Company on December 29, 2015. After reviewing
Plaintiff's application, supporting documentation, and
medical records, Allstate requested that Plaintiff undergo an
Examination Under Oath (“EUO”). Plaintiff's
counsel denied the EUO.
31, 2016, Plaintiff filed this action in Wayne County Circuit
Court, alleging breach of contract and seeking declaratory
relief. Plaintiff claims that he incurred expenses for care,
recovery, and/or rehabilitation; necessary replacement
services; and other personal protection benefits, and that
Defendant unreasonably refused to pay these benefits.
timely removed the case to this Court on June 17, 2016 [Dkt.
1]. Defendant then filed its Motion for Summary Judgment 
on February 21, 2017. Defendant requested that the Court
either dismiss the entirety of Plaintiff's case or
dismiss the claims pertaining to the fees charged by
Orthopedic P.C. and Greater Lakes Ambulatory Surgical Center,
where Plaintiff treated after the accident. A hearing on the
motion took place on July 12, 2017.
Court will GRANT IN PART and DENY IN PART
Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. Given the myriad
serious issues with Plaintiff's case - including the fact
that he treated with a doctor whose license was revoked due
to the deceitful practice of medicine - no reasonable trier
of fact could return a verdict in Plaintiff's favor, at
least as it pertains to the approximately $90, 000 in fees
charged by Orthopedic P.C. and Greater Lakes Ambulatory
Surgical Center. Therefore, to the extent Defendant seeks
dismissal of those claims, the motion for summary judgment is
GRANTED, and those claim against Defendant
are dismissed. However, Defendant's Motion is
DENIED to the extent that it seeks dismissal
of Plaintiff's claims for household services, attendant
care, and wage loss.
Court will also DENY Defendant's request
for sanctions. This request is based on a screenshot of
Plaintiff's PIP benefits application that appears in
Plaintiff's response brief. The screenshot shows a
modified version of Plaintiff's application, as compared
to the version of the application submitted as an exhibit to
both parties' briefs. It is clear that Plaintiff's
counsel's error was unintentional and not done in bad
faith. See Danese v. City of Roseville, 757 F.Supp.
827, 829 n.2 (E.D. Mich. 1991) (sanctions are inappropriate
where the misrepresentations “may very well have
resulted from mistake or inadvertence, ” and movants
did not prove “that the alleged misrepresentations were
September 5, 2015, at approximately 9 PM, a Chevrolet
Suburban struck Plaintiff while he was standing on a sidewalk
at the intersection of Collingwood and Dexter in Detroit.
Plaintiff was taken to Henry Ford Hospital, where he reported
pain in his left arm, left leg, left hip, knees, and left
elbow. (Pl.'s Ex. B). He also exhibited bruises, and an
abrasion over the left lower anterior abdomen. Id. A
physical examination revealed that Plaintiff was oriented to
person, place, and time. Plaintiff had mild degenerative disc
disease, but otherwise suffered no significant spinal or
neuroforaminal stenosis. Id. The doctor further
noted that “structures in the pelvis appear intact. Hip
joints are normal.” Id. No fractures were
evident. Id. CT scans of Plaintiff's head and
cervical spine were negative and revealed no major problems.
Plaintiff's Application for PIP Benefits
Plaintiff did not have a policy of insurance at the time of
the accident, he submitted his application for PIP Benefits
to the Michigan Assigned Claims Plan
(“MACP”) in October 2015. According to the
application, Dr. Mohamed Saleh treated
Plaintiff. (Def.'s Ex. D). Plaintiff also
indicated that he was not taking any medications prior to
this incident and that he was not treated in a hospital.
Id. Curiously, Plaintiff also stated that he
received outpatient hospital treatment. Id.
Plaintiff also claimed that he did not have any kind of
health insurance. Id.
October and December of 2015, the MACP informed Plaintiff
that it could not process his claim without a completed PIP
application and automobile insurance information from the
owner of the vehicle involved in the accident. (Def.'s
Ex. E, G). On December 17, 2015, Plaintiff's counsel
informed MACP that Plaintiff could not reach the owner of the
vehicle involved in the accident. MACP assigned
Plaintiff's PIP Benefits claim to Allstate on December
29, 2015. (Def.'s Ex. I).
the MACP, “[a] servicing insurer . . . shall
investigate the claim for benefits under the Plan.”
(Def.'s Ex. J at 4). According to the Plan, the servicing
insurer may require the claimant to submit additional
documentation or submit “to an examination under
oath.” Id. Defendant asked Plaintiff to
undergo an Examination Under Oath (“EOU”) in May
2016. Plaintiff's counsel ...