Michigan Ass'n of Chiropractors v. Blue Care Network of Michigan, Inc.
300 Mich. App. 577
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- MAC is a Michigan chiropractor trade association; Griffiths is a chiropractor plaintiff in Wayne County; BCN is a Michigan HMO with many enrollees and some MAC members in-network; before 2006 BCN had few network chiropractors and later reimbursed only network chiropractors; plaintiffs allege BCN discriminates against network chiropractors in access and reimbursement; five proposed classes sought for certification; trial court certified, on appeal court partially granted relief and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are the proposed classes properly defined under objective criteria? | Mac argues definitions are workable and common questions predominate. | BCN argues definitions rely on subjective beliefs and merits to determine membership. | Class 3 decertified; objective criteria required for membership. |
| Do the class definitions satisfy commonality and typicality requirements? | Common questions predominate for declaratory relief. | Individual circumstances predominate for retrospective relief. | Commonality for declaratory relief; bifurcation needed for retrospective relief; typicality issues narrowed. |
| Should the court bifurcate declaratory relief from retrospective claims? | Bifurcation would permit class certification for declaratory relief. | Retrospective relief cannot be certified as a class. | Trial court should bifurcate; certify declaratory claims only for a class. |
| Is Class 1 properly defined after modification? | Griffiths represents class; membership denial is the key issue. | Class 1 overbroad and includes non-denied applicants. | Modify Class 1 to include those denied or denied opportunity to apply; Griffiths cannot represent Class 1 as defined. |
Key Cases Cited
- Tinman v Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Mich, 264 Mich App 546 (2004) (illustrates need for predominance of common issues; highly individualized inquiries may defeat class cert.)
- Henry v Dow Chemical Co, 484 Mich 483 (2009) (early framework for MCR 3.501(A)(1); requires independence on typicality/adequacy.)
- Garrish v UAW, 149 F Supp 2d 326 (E.D. Mich. 2001) (objective criteria required to determine class membership.)
- Citizens for Pretrial Justice v Goldfarb, 415 Mich 255 (1982) (court may redefine a class to meet certification requirements.)
- A&M Supply Co v Microsoft Corp, 252 Mich App 580 (2002) (rigorous analysis not required; however need substantial support for prerequisites.)
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011) (common questions must yield classwide answers; broad commonality must be capable of proof.)