The Michigan Supreme Court ruled on July 27, 2026, that individuals injured in car accidents who have Medicare coverage must seek payments from Medicare to mitigate their damages. This decision affects how plaintiffs can recover medical expenses in tort claims under the state’s no-fault insurance law, specifically MCL 500.3135(3)(c). The ruling clarifies the responsibilities of injured parties and the limits on recoverable expenses.
The case, Canty v. Mason (Docket No. 167772), arose from a car accident involving Joseph Canty and Michael Mason. Canty, who had waived personal protection insurance (PIP) coverage due to having Medicare, sought to recover medical expenses from Mason, whom he claimed was at fault for the accident. The case highlights the complexities of navigating insurance claims and tort actions in Michigan.
Joseph Canty was injured in a car accident in February 2021, which he attributed to Michael Mason's negligence. Although Canty had no-fault insurance, he opted out of PIP coverage because he was eligible for Medicare. Instead of seeking coverage through his no-fault insurer, Canty pursued a tort action against Mason to recover his medical expenses. Mason contested this, claiming that Canty should have utilized his Medicare benefits and that any damages should be limited by the state’s no-fault reimbursement rules.
The trial court initially sided with Canty, ruling that he did not have a common-law duty to mitigate his damages and that the reimbursement limitations did not apply to his claim. However, the Court of Appeals later reversed this decision, stating that Canty had a duty to mitigate damages by seeking payments from Medicare. The appellate court also ruled that the reimbursement limits under MCL 500.3157 did apply to Canty’s claim.
The Michigan Supreme Court reviewed the case and issued a combined opinion authored by Justice Richard H. Bernstein, with the support of Chief Justice Megan K. Cavanagh and other justices. The court concluded that the common-law duty to mitigate damages applies to Canty’s tort claim, meaning he must seek payments from Medicare for his medical expenses. The court stated, “When a person is the victim of a tort, that person has a legal duty to avoid or minimize the damages.”
Furthermore, the court ruled that the reimbursement limitations in MCL 500.3157 do not apply to tort claims under MCL 500.3135(3)(c). The justices clarified that while Canty could recover allowable expenses, these must still be reasonable and necessary charges as defined in the no-fault act. The court stated, “The phrase ‘without limit’… cannot be construed to mean that there are no limits on plaintiff’s recovery of allowable expenses.”
This ruling has significant implications for individuals injured in car accidents who have opted out of PIP coverage in favor of Medicare. It establishes that they must actively seek Medicare payments to mitigate their damages, which may affect the amount they can claim in tort actions. The court’s decision emphasizes the importance of utilizing available health coverage to minimize economic harm after an accident.
The ruling also raises questions about the future of tort claims in Michigan’s no-fault insurance landscape. By clarifying the interaction between Medicare and the no-fault act, the court has set a precedent that could influence how similar cases are handled in the future. This decision reinforces the idea that injured parties must take reasonable steps to mitigate their damages, which could lead to changes in how plaintiffs approach their claims.
Looking ahead, it remains to be seen whether this case will be appealed or if related cases will emerge. The court’s ruling is likely to prompt discussions among lawmakers about the implications of the no-fault reforms enacted in 2019 and how they interact with Medicare coverage. As the legal landscape evolves, stakeholders will need to navigate the complexities of insurance and tort law in Michigan.