Court reports mixed outcome of battle between AAA and chiropractor who offered therapeutic services

Zigmond Chiropractic, P.C., sued AAA of Michigan in an attempt to secure payment for certain services which AAA deemed outside the chiropractor's license to provide.  AAA sued Zigmond, separately, arguing that was entitled to re-payment for services that Zigmond provided illegally and which AAA paid as a result of mistake. 

AAA argued that Zigmond provided services that exceeded its licensure under the Public Health Code and that various treatments including hot and cold pack applications, kinetic activities, massage therapy, mechanical traction therapy, myofascial release, neuromuscular reeducation and spinal adjustmers could not be compensated under the no fault act.  Zigmond argued that AAA lacked standing under the Michigan Supreme Court's very stringent standing requirements.  The chiropractor pointed to the fact that the public health act did not create a private cause of action and that the more conservative judges on the Supreme Court had interpreted similar acts to preclude litigants from asserting a cause of action.

Combining the several cases on appeal, the Court upheld most of AAA's claim, including a judgment that it had overpaid for more than $20,000.00 in services to three insureds.  It refused to apply the outcome of those insureds' claims to other pending cases, however, noting that broadly applying the initial judgment involving three insureds would influence signfiicant rights of other insureds who had no right to participate in the original cases.  The Court held that pursuant to established principles, the other insureds could not be bound by the outcome of someone else's factually-specific case.