If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to 

revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.

S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N

C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

W. A. FOOTE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, doing 

business as ALLEGIANCE HEALTH,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

UNPUBLISHED

January 29, 2019

v No. 340419

Jackson Circuit Court

MICHIGAN ASSIGNED CLAIMS PLAN,

MICHIGAN AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE 

PLACEMENT FACILITY, and JOHN DOE 

INSURANCE COMPANY

LC No. 16-000768-NF

Defendants-Appellees.

Before: CAMERON, P.J., and BECKERING and RONAYNE KRAUSE, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

In this no-fault insurance action, plaintiff, W.A. Foote Memorial Hospital, doing business 

as Allegiance Health, appeals an order granting summary disposition in favor of defendants, 

Michigan Assigned Claims Plan (MACP) and Michigan Automobile Insurance Placement 

Facility (MAIPF), pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(8). We affirm.

Pursuant to the Michigan no-fault insurance act, MCL 500.3101 et seq., plaintiff seeks 

assignment of a claim as a healthcare provider in connection with services it provided to an 

uninsured person involved in a motor vehicle accident. Plaintiff also seeks payment of personal 

injury protection insurance (PIP) benefits for those services.

Plaintiff argues that the decision in Covenant Med Ctr, Inc v State Farm Mut Ins Co, 500 

Mich 191, 196; 895 NW2d 490 (2017), establishing that a healthcare provider does not have a 

direct cause of action against no-fault insurers, applies only prospectively. We disagree.

A court’s decision to grant summary disposition is reviewed de novo. Id. at 199. Issues 

of statutory interpretation and whether a judicial decision applies retroactively are questions of 

law that this Court reviews de novo. W A Foote Mem Hosp v Mich Assigned Claims Plan, 321 

Mich App 159, 168; 909 NW2d 38 (2017). The determination whether a decision conflicts with 
-2-

a prior published opinion is a question of law subject to de novo review. People v Danto, 294 

Mich App 596, 605; 822 NW2d 600 (2011).

In Covenant, the Michigan Supreme Court held “that healthcare providers do not possess 

a statutory cause of action against no-fault insurers for recovery of personal protection insurance 

benefits under the no-fault act.” Covenant, 500 Mich at 196. The Covenant Court declined to 

“follow the long line of cases from the Court of Appeals recognizing that a healthcare provider 

may sue a no-fault insurer to recover PIP benefits under the no-fault act.” Id. at 200. Instead, it 

relied “on the language of the no-fault act to conclude that a healthcare provider possesses no 

statutory cause of action against a no-fault insurer for recovery of PIP benefits.” Id. 

We are bound to follow the decision in Covenant. See Associated Builders & 

Contractors v Lansing, 499 Mich 177, 191-192; 880 NW2d 765 (2016). And in W A Foote Mem 

Hosp, 321 Mich App at 176-191, this Court evaluated whether Covenant should apply 

retroactively to cases pending on appeal when Covenant was decided or apply prospectively 

only. The Court in W A Foote Mem Hosp concluded that the Michigan Supreme Court’s 

decision in Spectrum Health Hosps v Farm Bureau Mut Ins Co of Mich, 492 Mich 503; 821 

NW2d 117 (2012), controlled. That decision “essentially adopted the rationale” of the United 

States Supreme Court’s decision in Harper v Virginia Dep’t of Taxation, 509 US 86, 97; 113 S 

Ct 2510; 125 L Ed 2d 74 (1993), holding that judicial decisions concerning statutory 

interpretation apply retroactively to all cases pending on direct review when the rule is 

announced. W A Foote Mem Hosp, 321 Mich App at 190-191.

The Court in W A Foote Mem Hosp applied Covenant retroactively because the issue 

there—whether the plaintiff possessed a statutory cause of action—was preserved and the case 

was pending on direct review when Covenant was issued. Id. at 167-168, 173-174, 183-184, 

196. The W A Foote Mem Hosp Court clarified that “the general rule is, and always has been, 

that judicial decisions apply retroactively.” Id. at 180. The remaining issue in these cases is the 

circumstances under which exceptions to the general rule of retroactivity should be made. Id. 

The Court in W A Foote Mem Hosp concluded that, even if it were to consider the “threshold 

question” and the “three-factor test” as stated in Pohutski v Allen Park, 465 Mich 675, 696; 641 

NW2d 219 (2002), it would not “find a level of exigency that would justify contravening the 

general rule of full retroactivity.” Id. at 191, 195. This was a permissible interpretation of the 

law. See VHS Huron Valley Sinai Hosp v Sentinel Ins Co (On Remand), 322 Mich App 707, 

713-715; 916 NW2d 218 (2018).

Under MCR 7.215(C)(2), “[a] published opinion of the Court of Appeals has precedential 

effect under the rule of stare decisis.” “The rule of stare decisis generally requires courts to 

reach the same result when presented with the same or substantially similar issues in another 

case with different parties.” WA Foote Mem Hosp v City of Jackson, 262 Mich App 333, 341; 

686 NW2d 9 (2004). However, despite the doctrine of stare decisis, a rule of law from a case 

may not be binding on a subsequent case if that case is factually distinguishable. Yankee Springs 

Twp v Fox, 264 Mich App 604, 613 n 1; 692 NW2d 728 (2004). The issue presented on appeal 

in this case—whether Covenant should be applied retroactively to those cases pending on direct 

appeal at the time it was decided—is not factually distinguishable from our recent decision in

W A Foote Mem Hosp. That case turned on the fact that the healthcare provider had filed a direct 

action against defendants that was pending when Covenant was decided. The same is true in this 
-3-

case. As a result, we conclude that Covenant applies retroactively, following the precedent set 

forth in W A Foote Mem Hosp, as we are bound to do. See Shah v State Farm Mut Auto Ins Co, 

324 Mich App 182, 195-196; 920 NW2d 148 (2018); Bronson Healthcare Group, Inc v Mich 

Assigned Claims Plan, 323 Mich App 302, 305-306; 917 NW2d 682 (2018); VHS Huron Valley 

Sinai Hosp (On Remand), 322 Mich App at 713-715. Accordingly, the trial court did not err 

when it granted summary disposition in favor of defendants.

Affirmed.

/s/ Thomas C. Cameron 

/s/ Jane M. Beckering 

/s/ Amy Ronayne Krause