Meeting the Challenge of 2017: Civil Bench/Bar Luncheon

By March 21, 2017Blog, News

March 15, 2017

The Judges of the Third Circuit Civil Division held the Civil Bench/Bar Luncheon

Meeting the Challenge of 2017. The Bench addressed the challenge of how to efficiently handle the influx of auto negligence cases and how to resolve 70% of PIP cases within one year of the filing date. The Court is attaching addendums to Scheduling Orders in No-Fault cases with additional requirements.

These include:

  • Defendant insurance companies producing the redacted PIP claim file with the privilege log within 21 days of a scheduling order being issued.
  • Plaintiff identifying all known medical, household service and attendant care providers and employers by name, address and phone number within 28 days of the scheduling order being issued.
  • Plaintiff must provide executed medical record authorizations for all providers on a form supplied by Defendant within 28 days of the scheduling order being issued.
  • The parties must establish, in writing, a mutually agreed upon schedule for depositions and independent medical examinations within 28 days of the scheduling order being issued.

In addition to the new Scheduling Order Addendums, the Bench discussed its new protocol for cases that evaluate under $25,000.00. These cases will be sent to an early facilitation. The Court will appoint a facilitator, however, the parties my stipulate facilitation with a different facilitator.

The Defense bar noted concerns with scheduling all IMEs within 28 days from issuance of the scheduling order would preclude insurers from obtaining necessary IMEs pursuant to MCL 500.3151 after that deadline. The Bench noted that if the insurers wanted additional IMEs after the 28 day guideline that insurers could file a Motion and show good cause. The local rule appears to create a new requirement that the insurer show good cause that an IME after the 28 day guideline is necessary. However, this local rule appears to be inconsistent with the Michigan Supreme Court’s decision in Muci.

3 Comments

Leave a Reply