Hofmann v. Auto Club Insurance

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that thermography is excluded from the scope of chiropractic because it is not functionally limited to an analysis of the spine; as a result, it is not subject to payment as a benefit under Michigan’s No-Fault Act
• stating that “or” generally refers to an alternative or choice between two or more things
• rejecting the insurance provider’s argument that the “customary charge” under § 3157 referred to the amount that an insurance provider paid for the services rather than the amount it was charged for the services
• rejecting the insurer’s argument that “the obligation of a no-fault carrier must be limited to what a health insurer would have had to pay if health insurance existed . . . ”
• “ . . . [W]e are compelled to conclude that heat and cold are not included within the scope of chiropractic practice”
• “[T]o the extent that plaintiffs are found to have engaged in the exercise of a health-care activity that is excluded from the statutory scope of chiropractic, that mere fact of exclusion does not, by itself, lead to the conclusion that the activity was rendered unlawfully.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).