SPECIALTY MEDICAL CENTER INC V FARM BUREAU MUTUAL INSURANCE CO

Court of Appeals, State of Michigan
ORDER
SPECIALTY MEDICAL CENTER INC V FARM BUREAU
MUTUAL INSURANCE CO
Docket No. 378116
LC No. 24-012339-NF
Kristina Robinson Garrett
Presiding Judge
Colleen A. O’Brien
Randy J. Wallace
Judges
The motion for immediate consideration is GRANTED.
Pursuant to MCR 7.205(E)(2), in lieu of granting the application for leave to appeal, the trial
court’s July 23, 2025 order is REVERSED IN PART and the matter REMANDED for further proceedings
consistent with this order. Defendant Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company (Farm Bureau) filed a
motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10) which clearly raised only one legal issue: whether
certain treatments were medically efficacious. This is apparent from the motion, brief in support, and from
Farm Bureau’s arguments at the motion hearing. While a single sentence in the motion complained that two
providers billed for injections, this was not sufficient to put plaintiffs, Specialty Medical Center, Inc.
(Specialty), and Universal Care Surgical Center, LLC (Universal), on notice that any claim of duplicative
billing was being raised, or that either needed to respond to the motion with arguments or evidence on that
particular point. The trial court denied the motion as to the legal issue actually raised (efficacy), but then
granted summary disposition as to Universal’s bills for the injections as allegedly duplicative of those of
plaintiff Specialty. That was despite counsel explaining at the hearing that Specialty billed for the
physician’s professional fees, while Universal billed for use of their facility, and counsel for Farm Bureau
even acknowledging at the hearing that a physician had testified at his deposition about the differences in
the two provider’s bills.
The trial court’s decision to nonetheless grant summary disposition on the duplicative-billing
issue plainly violated Universal’s due-process rights. See Al-Maliki v LaGrant, 286 Mich App 483, 485;
781 NW2d 853 (2009) (explaining that, while MCR 2.116(I)(1) does permit a trial court to grant summary
disposition sua sponte, if the proofs demonstrate such is appropriate, the trial court cannot do so without
affording a party due process of law). Universal had no notice that any alleged duplicative billing was an
issue to be resolved by the trial court, and thus did not have any obligation to present evidence or argument
on that point. See Lowrey v LMPS & LMPJ, Inc, 500 Mich 1, 7; 890 NW2d 344 (2016) (explaining that the
moving party must meet its burden first before the burden shifts to the nonmoving party to present evidence
demonstrating a question of fact on a disputed issue).
Nor can we conclude that Universal’s motion for reconsideration and the court’s decision on
that motion was sufficient to render the due-process violation harmless. In its motion for reconsideration,
Universal pointed out the trial court’s error in raising the issue of duplicative billing sua sponte and asked
that the trial court require Farm Bureau to properly raise the issue in a summary disposition motion, such
that Universal could respond. The trial court’s order denying the motion for reconsideration states that the

-- 1 of 2 --

motion presented nothing the court did not consider when ruling on the motion previously and did not
demonstrate palpable error. The trial court’s order denying reconsideration does not reflect that the trial
court gave any further consideration to the merits of the duplicative-billing question or that it actually
considered the argument being made in the motion for reconsideration, which was essentially that Universal
be given the opportunity to address the merits of the duplicative-billing question. Cf. Al-Maliki, 286 Mich
App at 485-486, 489 (explaining that, while this type of due-process violation can be rendered harmless by
an opportunity for rehearing, reversal was nonetheless required where the trial court’s decision on
reconsideration did not reflect that the court considered any evidence the plaintiff provided with the motion
when it stated that the motion “merely presented the same issue ruled on by the court when granting
summary disposition”).
As in Al-Maliki, “we conclude that procedural error occurred because the basic requirements
of notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard have not been satisfied in this case.” Id. at 489 (footnote
omitted). The trial court’s July 23, 2025 order is thus reversed to the extent that it granted summary
disposition in favor of Farm Bureau with respect to any of Universal’s bills. Should Farm Bureau file a
motion for summary disposition asserting that any of Universal’s bills are duplicative, this order should not
be understood as expressing any opinion on the merits of such a motion.
This order is to have immediate effect. MCR 7.215(F)(2). We do not retain jurisdiction.
______________________________
Presiding Judge
January 15, 2026

-- 2 of 2 --