By Tom Kirvan
Legal News
When a catastrophic brain injury survivor sought to break free from an unfavorable attendant care contract, the Bloomfield Hills-based law firm of Liss & Andrews took the case with a vision for more than just one client’s relief.
They aimed to challenge a structural inequity in Michigan’s revised No-Fault Act, and in doing so, secured a multi-million-dollar settlement that may reverberate far beyond the courtroom.
The case began when the client, a mid-Michigan resident severely injured in a 2009 motorcycle crash, and his family approached Liss & Andrews, which deals exclusively with No-Fault cases involving the catastrophically injured.
The crash victim had endured a traumatic brain injury, multiple rib fractures, a pulmonary vein laceration, and additional internal injuries in the accident. Over the years, he developed traumatically induced dementia, parkinsonism, major depressive disorder, and a vulnerable immune system. He required 24-hour skilled attendant care, mostly provided by his wife.
But in 2020, sweeping changes to Michigan’s No-Fault Act imposed a controversial limitation: family members could only be compensated for 56 hours per week of attendant care, leaving the remaining 112 hours to be covered – if at all – by commercial care agencies.
Partner Nicholas Andrews and attorney Meagan O’Donnell believed the restriction created an unjust double standard.
“The result here is that people like our client, and many others in similar situations, are getting the short end of the stick,” Andrews said. “It’s discriminatory, illogical, and ultimately more expensive.”
Rather than accept the status quo, the legal team sued the client’s insurer, alleging violations of the No-Fault Act, Bad Faith Breach of Contract, and even extortion. Before Oakland County Circuit Court could rule, Liss & Andrews negotiated a settlement that not only voided the unfavorable contract but tripled the client’s attendant care payments and delivered $750,000 in back pay and extra-contractual damages.
The settlement matters beyond the immediate financial relief, Andrews indicated. By renegotiating the terms, the client gained a cost-of-living increase, better aligning payments with rising care costs.
The settlement also demonstrates a successful legal strategy for challenging the 56-hour family care cap provision that, critics say, penalizes the very people best equipped to provide compassionate, consistent care.
“In effect, the state has created a double standard,” Andrews explained. “Certified Nursing Assistants employed by commercial agencies can provide unlimited hours, but family caregivers, who often provide better care at lower costs, are arbitrarily capped.”
The backstory underscores why this case was particularly compelling, according to Andrews and O’Donnell. In the days after the client’s accident, while he was still in a coma, the insurance company approached his wife to set care rates. She was offered, and accepted, a $15 per hour rate, “an unreasonably low rate that was calculated without fully and properly analyzing the reasonable value of services provided,” Andrews said, contending that the company knew she was “vulnerable” and in no position to negotiate.
Over time, that rate proved unsustainable, especially in light of medical inflation and the complexity of the care required, Andrews declared. Even after the law changed in 2020, the insurer attempted to cut the rate by $2 per hour and delayed benefit payments for months. Andrews characterized these actions as “egregious,” amounting to intentional infliction of emotional distress.
The client’s complaint cited the Michigan Court of Appeals decision in Andary v. USAA Casualty Insurance Co. (2022), which held that the 2019 No-Fault amendments (that took effect in 2020) could not retroactively reduce benefits for individuals injured before the changes. The court reasoned that the state Legislature had not clearly intended for the amendments to apply to “legacy” claimants.
For rural residents like the plaintiff, finding reliable commercial care is nearly impossible. The limited pool of qualified providers often means higher costs, sometimes 31 to 154 percent more than family-provided care. This undermines one of the reform’s stated goals of lowering insurance premiums, Andrews maintained.
In court filings and public commentary, Andrews and O’Donnell stressed the economic and human cost of the 56-hour cap. They referenced an American Medical Association study showing that patient- and family-centered care improves outcomes, reduces costs, and increases satisfaction.
“To prevent round-the-clock family care makes no sense at all,” Andrews said.
While this case ended in a settlement rather than a precedent-setting court ruling, Andrews said that it could provide a powerful roadmap for other families facing similar battles. By combining statutory arguments with constitutional claims, such as equal protection violations, law firms representing accident victims may have positioned themselves to attack the law on multiple fronts.
“This isn’t just about one client,” Andrews said. “This is about changing the system so that people who’ve already suffered unimaginable trauma aren’t further punished by poorly conceived legislation.”
Michigan’s 2020 No-Fault revisions were sold as a way to lower premiums, but the real-world results have been uneven, Andrews indicated. For “legacy” claimants injured before the law changed, the reforms have created unintended consequences such as reduced benefits and new bureaucratic hurdles.
For now, the plaintiff in this case can focus on healing and stability, supported by a financial arrangement that reflects the true cost of his care. For Liss & Andrews, the fight is far from over in the battle to eliminate discriminatory cost disparities.
“Our work continues,” Andrews said. “There are still too many families out there living this nightmare. This case proves it doesn’t have to be that way.”
Legal News
When a catastrophic brain injury survivor sought to break free from an unfavorable attendant care contract, the Bloomfield Hills-based law firm of Liss & Andrews took the case with a vision for more than just one client’s relief.
They aimed to challenge a structural inequity in Michigan’s revised No-Fault Act, and in doing so, secured a multi-million-dollar settlement that may reverberate far beyond the courtroom.
The case began when the client, a mid-Michigan resident severely injured in a 2009 motorcycle crash, and his family approached Liss & Andrews, which deals exclusively with No-Fault cases involving the catastrophically injured.
The crash victim had endured a traumatic brain injury, multiple rib fractures, a pulmonary vein laceration, and additional internal injuries in the accident. Over the years, he developed traumatically induced dementia, parkinsonism, major depressive disorder, and a vulnerable immune system. He required 24-hour skilled attendant care, mostly provided by his wife.
But in 2020, sweeping changes to Michigan’s No-Fault Act imposed a controversial limitation: family members could only be compensated for 56 hours per week of attendant care, leaving the remaining 112 hours to be covered – if at all – by commercial care agencies.
Partner Nicholas Andrews and attorney Meagan O’Donnell believed the restriction created an unjust double standard.
“The result here is that people like our client, and many others in similar situations, are getting the short end of the stick,” Andrews said. “It’s discriminatory, illogical, and ultimately more expensive.”
Rather than accept the status quo, the legal team sued the client’s insurer, alleging violations of the No-Fault Act, Bad Faith Breach of Contract, and even extortion. Before Oakland County Circuit Court could rule, Liss & Andrews negotiated a settlement that not only voided the unfavorable contract but tripled the client’s attendant care payments and delivered $750,000 in back pay and extra-contractual damages.
The settlement matters beyond the immediate financial relief, Andrews indicated. By renegotiating the terms, the client gained a cost-of-living increase, better aligning payments with rising care costs.
The settlement also demonstrates a successful legal strategy for challenging the 56-hour family care cap provision that, critics say, penalizes the very people best equipped to provide compassionate, consistent care.
“In effect, the state has created a double standard,” Andrews explained. “Certified Nursing Assistants employed by commercial agencies can provide unlimited hours, but family caregivers, who often provide better care at lower costs, are arbitrarily capped.”
The backstory underscores why this case was particularly compelling, according to Andrews and O’Donnell. In the days after the client’s accident, while he was still in a coma, the insurance company approached his wife to set care rates. She was offered, and accepted, a $15 per hour rate, “an unreasonably low rate that was calculated without fully and properly analyzing the reasonable value of services provided,” Andrews said, contending that the company knew she was “vulnerable” and in no position to negotiate.
Over time, that rate proved unsustainable, especially in light of medical inflation and the complexity of the care required, Andrews declared. Even after the law changed in 2020, the insurer attempted to cut the rate by $2 per hour and delayed benefit payments for months. Andrews characterized these actions as “egregious,” amounting to intentional infliction of emotional distress.
The client’s complaint cited the Michigan Court of Appeals decision in Andary v. USAA Casualty Insurance Co. (2022), which held that the 2019 No-Fault amendments (that took effect in 2020) could not retroactively reduce benefits for individuals injured before the changes. The court reasoned that the state Legislature had not clearly intended for the amendments to apply to “legacy” claimants.
For rural residents like the plaintiff, finding reliable commercial care is nearly impossible. The limited pool of qualified providers often means higher costs, sometimes 31 to 154 percent more than family-provided care. This undermines one of the reform’s stated goals of lowering insurance premiums, Andrews maintained.
In court filings and public commentary, Andrews and O’Donnell stressed the economic and human cost of the 56-hour cap. They referenced an American Medical Association study showing that patient- and family-centered care improves outcomes, reduces costs, and increases satisfaction.
“To prevent round-the-clock family care makes no sense at all,” Andrews said.
While this case ended in a settlement rather than a precedent-setting court ruling, Andrews said that it could provide a powerful roadmap for other families facing similar battles. By combining statutory arguments with constitutional claims, such as equal protection violations, law firms representing accident victims may have positioned themselves to attack the law on multiple fronts.
“This isn’t just about one client,” Andrews said. “This is about changing the system so that people who’ve already suffered unimaginable trauma aren’t further punished by poorly conceived legislation.”
Michigan’s 2020 No-Fault revisions were sold as a way to lower premiums, but the real-world results have been uneven, Andrews indicated. For “legacy” claimants injured before the law changed, the reforms have created unintended consequences such as reduced benefits and new bureaucratic hurdles.
For now, the plaintiff in this case can focus on healing and stability, supported by a financial arrangement that reflects the true cost of his care. For Liss & Andrews, the fight is far from over in the battle to eliminate discriminatory cost disparities.
“Our work continues,” Andrews said. “There are still too many families out there living this nightmare. This case proves it doesn’t have to be that way.”
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
https://www.legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
