Joseph Canty V Michael Chester Mason, 167772

Canty sued Mason in tort under MCL 500.3135(3)(c) to recover medical allowable expenses after a car crash allegedly caused by Mason. 1
Canty had waived PIP coverage under MCL 500.3107d because he had Medicare Parts A and B. 2
Mason sought summary disposition to limit damages, arguing Canty had to mitigate by using Medicare and that MCL 500.3157 fee caps applied. 3
The trial court denied summary disposition, but the Court of Appeals held Canty had to mitigate and that MCL 500.3157 applied. 4
The Supreme Court affirmed the mitigation ruling but reversed on application of MCL 500.3157. 5
Separate opinions agreed on mitigation but questioned whether Medicare or no-fault fee schedules should govern damages. 6

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does mitigation of damages apply to a Medicare-covered plaintiff's tort claim? 7	Canty said 'without limit' bars any mitigation duty.	Mason said reasonable mitigation required seeking Medicare payment.	Mitigation applies; Canty had to seek Medicare payments. 8
Do MCL 500.3157 reimbursement caps apply to MCL 500.3135(3)(c) tort damages? 9	Canty argued they do not apply to tort damages.	Mason argued MCL 3107's prefatory language imports the caps.	MCL 500.3157 does not apply to this tort claim. 10

Buhl v Oak Park, 507 Mich 236 (Mich. 2021) (summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10) is reviewed de novo 11)
Wyandotte Electric Supply Co v Electrical Technology Sys., Inc., 499 Mich 127 (Mich. 2016) (statutory interpretation is reviewed de novo and plain meaning controls 12)
In re Forfeiture of 2006 Saturn Ion, 514 Mich 399 (Mich. 2024) (courts avoid readings that render statutory language surplusage 13)
Morris v Clawson Tank Co, 459 Mich 256 (Mich. 1998) (mitigation of damages is a common-law duty requiring reasonable efforts 14)
Rasheed v Chrysler Corp., 445 Mich 109 (Mich. 1994) (defendant bears the burden on failure-to-mitigate as an affirmative defense 15)
Janini v London Townhouses Condo Ass'n, 514 Mich 86 (Mich. 2024) (the Legislature is presumed aware of the common law when it legislates 16)
Bazzi v Sentinel Ins Co., 502 Mich 390 (Mich. 2018) (statutes are construed in harmony with the common law absent clear abrogation 17)
Marquis v Hartford Accident & Indemnity (After Remand), 444 Mich 638 (Mich. 1994) (mitigation applies in a no-fault work-loss context 18)
Jostock v Mayfield Twp, 513 Mich 360 (Mich. 2024) (courts avoid constructions that render statutory text nugatory 19)
Andary v USAA Cas. Ins. Co., 512 Mich 207 (Mich. 2023) (discusses the 2019 no-fault reforms and Medicare-related coverage issues 20)