STATE OF MICHIGAN

FRANK J. KELLEY, ATTORNEY GENERAL

Opinion No. 5990

October 2, 1981

INSURANCE:

No-fault insurance act--mileage allowance for travel for medical purposes

In the absence of a rule of the Commissioner of Insurance setting forth allowable travel expenses for medical services under the no-fault insurance act, state travel reimbursement rates may furnish reasonable guidance.

Honorable Gary Corbin

State Senator

The Capitol

Lansing, Michigan

You have requested my opinion as to the proper mileage allowance permitted under the Michigan no-fault insurance act, 1956 PA 218, added by 1972 PA 294; MCLA 500.3101 et seq; MSA 24.13101 et seq, in connection with 'out-of-pocket expenses' associated with travel for medical purposes.

Pertaining to personal protection insurance benefits payable under the Michigan no-fault insurance act, specifically 1956 PA 218, supra, Sec. 3107(a); MCLA 500.3107(a); MSA 24.13107(a), provides that:

This section provides that benefits payable under a no fault insurance policy for personal protection insurance, commonly referred to as 'PIP' benefits, include 'all 'reasonable charges' incurred for 'reasonably necessary' products, 'services' and accommodations for an injured person's 'care, recovery or rehabilitation". Reasonable out-of-pocket expense associated with travel for medical purposes is not specifically addressed in the statute, but would be encompassed under 1956 PA 218, Sec. 3107(a), supra.

In Visconti v DAIIE, 90 Mich App 477, 479-480; 282 NW2d 360, 361 (1979), the court recognized that the provisions of 1956 PA 218, Sec. 3107, supra, the no-fault insurance act, are similar to Section 315 of the Worker's Disability Compensation Act of 1969, 1969 PA 317, as amended; MCLA 418.315; MSA 17.237(315), which provide in part for the furnishing of reasonable medical services by an employer to an employee who receives a personal injury in the course of his employment.

Relying on the predecessor to the Worker's Disability Compensation Act of 1969, 1969 PA 317, Sec. 315, supra; MCLA 412.4; MSA 17.154, the Michigan Court of Appeals in Hite v Evart Products Co, 34 Mich App 247; 191 NW2d 136, lv den, 386 Mich 753 (1971), addressed the issue of whether plaintiff, who was injured in the course of her employment by defendant, was entitled to travel expensee for trips taken to secure necessary medical care. There, in holding that plaintiff was allowed travel expenses incurred in receiving medical care, the court in Hite, supra, said:

Thus, the court in Hite, supra, recognized that the Worker's Disability Compensation Act requires that the employer furnish 'medical services' for an injured employee, and that this medical services obligation includes reimbursement for reasonable transportation expenses incurred by the employee in securing medical services. While the court in Hite, supra, recognized the existence of a department rule addressing the payment of travel expenses, its holding was based upon statutory provisions requiring the furnishing of 'medical services,' and a recognition that in order for one to receive these medical services, one would have to travel.

In addition, the court in Hite, supra, recognized that the purpose of the Michigan standard travel regulations is to provide travel reimbursement, at neither a gain nor a loss. For that reason, the court adopted them as a fair standard for allowable travel expenses, in the absence of any specific showing that they were unreasonable.

The Commissioner of Insurance has authority to promulgate rules and regulations as may be deemed necessary to enforce the Insurance Code to carry out the responsibilities of chief officer of the insurance Bureau.

1956 PA 218, supra, Sec. 210; MCLA 500.210; MSA 24.1210, provides:

The proper mileage allowance under the Michigan no-fault insurance act, as a 'reasonable charge,' is within the rulemaking power of the Commissioner of Insurance and guidance as to its meaning may be carried out by a rule promulgated pursuant to the provisions of the Michigan Administrative Procedures Act of 1969, 1969 PA 306; MCLA 24.201 et seq; MSA 3.560(101) et seq. In this connection, it is noted that Rule 15(2) of the Department of Labor, Bureau of Worker's Disability Compensation, presently provides that travel expenses shall be those authorized in the state's standardized travel regulations. Administrative Code, 1980 QS No 3, R 408.45(2).

The Commissioner of Insurance has not, to date, promulgated any rules pertaining to allowable travel expenses under the no-fault insurance act. Nonetheless, an injured person entitled to reasonable charges for reasonably necessary medical care, consisting of products, services and accommodations, would also be entitled to the reasonable charges for the cost of transportation to obtain the medical care. As the court recognized in Hite, supra, transportation expenses are an integral part of receiving medical services and are, therefore, encompassed within statutory provisions covering expenses for medical services.

It is my opinion, therefore, that in the absence of a statute, court decision, or rule specifically setting forth allowable travel expenses under the Michigan no-fault insurance act, the state travel reimbursement rates may furnish reasonable guidance.

Frank J. Kelley