State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Spine Specialists of Michigan, P.C. et al

Filing 97

ORDER denying 83 Motion for Reconsideration, and for Leave to Amend. Signed by District Judge John Corbett O'Meara. (WBar)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE
INSURANCE COMPANY,

Case No. 14-13299

Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant,

Honorable John Corbett O’Meara

v.
LOUIS N. RADDEN, D.O., and SPINE
SPECIALISTS OF MICHIGAN, P.C.,
Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs.
/
ORDER DENYING
DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND FOR LEAVE TO AMEND
This matter came before the court on Spine Specialists of Michigan's March 7, 2016 Motion
for Reconsideration of the Court's February 22, 2016 Order Granting State Farm's Motion to Dismiss
the Counterclaim and for Leave to Amend. State Farm filed a response March 22, 2016. No reply
was filed, and no oral argument was heard.
LAW AND ANALYSIS

Generally, and without restricting the court's discretion, the court will
not grant motions for rehearing or reconsideration that merely present the
same issues ruled upon by the court, either expressly or by reasonable
implication. The movant must not only demonstrate a palpable defect by
which the court and the parties and other persons entitled to be heard on
the motion have been misled but also show that correcting the defect will
result in a different disposition of the case.
L.R. 7.1(h)(3).
"[A] motion for reconsideration is not properly used as a vehicle to re-hash old
arguments or to advance positions that could have been argued earlier but were not."

Smith ex rel. Smith v. Mount Pleasant Pub. Sch., 298 F. Supp. 2d 636, 637 (E.D.
Mich. 2003). In its motion for reconsideration, defendant Spine Specialists of
Michigan presents the same issues ruled upon by the court, either expressly or by
reasonable implication.

Accordingly, the court must deny its motion for

reconsideration.
A district court properly denies leave to amend a complaint if the proposed
amendment would be futile. See Brown v. Owens Corning Inv. Review Comm., 622
F.3d 564, 574 (6th Cir. 2010).
Defendant Spine Specialists seeks leave to amend the counterclaim, asserting that
because it now has access to State Farm's files, it can determine the identity of the
"IME physician and/or company that conducted the fraudulent IME's for specific
patients." Def.'s mot. br. at 17-18. However, the identities of physicians who
provided independent medical exams ("IME's") do not cure Defendant's remaining
Rule 9(b) pleading deficiencies as previously determined by the court. Defendant
provides no additional facts it proposes would cure those deficiencies or any facts that
would demonstrate that State Farm owed a duty separate and distinct from its
contractual and statutory obligations. Therefore, amending the counterclaim would
be futile.
ORDER
2

It is hereby ORDERED that Defendant's motion for reconsideration and for
leave to amend is DENIED.

s/John Corbett O'Meara
United States District Judge
Date: February 16, 2017

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel
of record on this date, February 16, 2017, using the ECF system.

s/William Barkholz
Case Manager

3