Attorney General Dana Nessel moved Tuesday to block DTE Energy’s request for a $474.3 million annual rate increase, the utility’s second major ask in two months. DIFS issued a bulletin clarifying Medicare reimbursement caps under Michigan’s no-fault statute following a recent Court of Appeals ruling. The Michigan Attorney Discipline Board issued three separate discipline actions, including a reciprocal disbarment from California and two consent reprimands. The AG’s office also announced a top-level leadership transition effective this week.
What is the AG challenging in the DTE rate case?
AG Nessel formally intervened April 28 to block DTE’s $474.3 million rate hike request, filed two months after a $242.4 million increase was approved. The AG’s office is also before the Court of Appeals fighting for access to redacted contracts tied to DTE’s data center deals, arguing ratepayers are being treated as an open checkbook.
What did DIFS Bulletin 2026-15-INS clarify?
Following the Court of Appeals decision in West Michigan Home Care Services, Inc v. Meemic, DIFS confirmed that Medicare reimbursement caps apply to home health aide and skilled nursing care under no-fault policies. Providers seeking to contest reimbursement rates must now use the CMS Home Health PPS Web Pricer and navigate a stricter documentation process.
What were the three ADB discipline actions issued this week?
The Michigan ADB issued a reciprocal disbarment against California attorney Aaron Spolin (effective April 23), a consent reprimand against Brighton attorney Kimberly J. Hamman for failing to disclose her role in a real estate transaction with an unrepresented party (effective April 24), and a consent reprimand against Detroit attorney Donovan Rashaad Johnson following a felony conviction that was later reduced to a misdemeanor (effective April 28).
Who is taking over as Chief Deputy AG?
Fadwa Manning has been named Chief Deputy Attorney General, succeeding Joe Potchen, who retires April 30 after 32 years of service. Manning’s appointment signals a leadership transition at the department heading into the second half of 2026.
Recent Developments: Monday–Wednesday
AG Nessel Moves to Block DTE’s $474.3 Million Rate Hike
Attorney General Dana Nessel formally intervened Tuesday, April 28, to oppose DTE Energy’s latest rate increase request before the Michigan Public Service Commission. The filing seeks to block a $474.3 million annual rate hike, a request that arrived two months after DTE received approval for a $242.4 million increase.
Nessel characterized the request as corporate greed, citing two specific concerns: secret data center contracts in Saline Township and unsupported executive costs that include private jet travel. The AG’s office is simultaneously before the Michigan Court of Appeals fighting for access to the redacted contracts underlying DTE’s data center arrangements, arguing that ratepayers are being used as an open checkbook without the transparency that regulatory review requires.
DIFS Bulletin 2026-15-INS: No-Fault Medicare Reimbursement Caps Clarified
The Department of Insurance and Financial Services issued Bulletin 2026-15-INS on April 24, with implementation rolling out through this week. The bulletin follows the Court of Appeals decision in West Michigan Home Care Services, Inc v. Meemic, which settled a key question about the scope of Medicare reimbursement caps under Michigan’s no-fault statute.
The ruling confirmed that those caps apply to home health aide and skilled nursing care. For providers, the practical consequence is a significantly stricter documentation process: appeals of reimbursement rates must now be routed through the CMS Home Health PPS Web Pricer. Providers who have not updated their billing and appeals infrastructure to reflect this ruling face compounded exposure going forward.
Joe Potchen Retires; Fadwa Manning Named Chief Deputy AG
Deputy Attorney General Joe Potchen retires April 30 after 32 years of service with the Michigan AG’s office. AG Nessel has named Fadwa Manning as the new Chief Deputy, the department’s top operational position. The transition takes effect this week as the AG’s office is actively litigating the DTE rate case and other significant matters. Manning’s appointment marks a meaningful shift in senior leadership heading into the second half of the year.
Coming Up: Thursday–Friday
Michigan Counties Legislative Conference Concludes in Lansing
The 2026 Michigan Counties Legislative Conference wraps up Thursday and Friday. The primary agenda items include opioid settlement funding and spending rules, and status reporting on digital access compliance obligations for county websites. This conference functions as a main briefing point for how county governments will respond to upcoming federal accessibility mandates under the ADA’s Title II digital rule, a compliance deadline that is now active for larger jurisdictions.
Legislature Reconvenes; Property Tax Package and Signed Bills
Both chambers reconvened Wednesday, April 29. The primary item to watch is movement on a property tax reform package introduced by House Republicans late last week. Committee discussion or preliminary floor action is expected before the week ends, though the package faces a divided chamber dynamic.
Governor Whitmer signed two bipartisan measures Tuesday: HB 4303 and SB 274, which together designate a portion of US-131 in Kalamazoo as the Master Sergeant Gregory T. Kuhse Memorial Highway.
MSC and Court of Appeals Orders Expected by Thursday
The Michigan Supreme Court held its April oral arguments earlier this month. Order lists from the MSC and the Court of Appeals are typically released Tuesday and Wednesday. A batch of opinions or leave-to-appeal orders may drop by Thursday afternoon as the courts clear their April dockets. No specific cases are confirmed pending at publication, but practitioners with matters before either court should monitor the order lists this week.
Attorney Discipline: ADB Actions This Week
Three discipline actions were issued by the Michigan Attorney Discipline Board between April 23 and April 28, 2026. They are summarized below in chronological order of effective date.
This action arose from a reciprocal discipline proceeding under MCR 9.120(C). The California Supreme Court disbarred Spolin effective September 11, 2025, in Case Nos. SBC-24-O-30656, SBC-24-O-30844, and S292012. The Grievance Administrator filed a certified copy of that order with the Michigan board.
The board served an order on October 22, 2025, directing the parties to respond within 21 days on any objection to comparable discipline in Michigan. Spolin filed an objection on November 19, 2025, and requested additional briefing. The matter was assigned to Tri-County Hearing Panel #7 under MCR 9.120(C)(3).
The panel denied the additional briefing request, finding that Spolin had been afforded due process in California’s disciplinary proceedings and that comparable discipline was not clearly inappropriate. On April 1, 2026, the panel issued the disbarment order, effective April 23, 2026.
Hamman and the Grievance Administrator filed a stipulation for a consent order under MCR 9.115(F)(5), accepted by Livingston County Hearing Panel #1. Hamman entered no contest pleas to the factual allegations.
The panel found that Hamman prepared property and estate documents granting herself and her husband an interest in real estate owned by an unrepresented party, without adequately advising that party of her role in the transaction. The formal complaint further alleged that, during subsequent litigation arising from the transaction, Hamman requested that a judge withdraw a request for investigation the judge had filed against her.
Rule violations found: failure to adequately inform a self-represented person who reasonably should have been known to misunderstand her role, in violation of MRPC 4.3(a); conduct exposing the legal profession or courts to obloquy, contempt, censure, or reproach, in violation of MCR 9.104(2); conduct violating the Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct, in violation of MRPC 8.4(a) and MCR 9.104(4); and an attempt to obtain an agreement that a party withdraw a request for investigation, in violation of MCR 9.104(10)(b).
Johnson and the Grievance Administrator filed a stipulation for a consent order of reprimand under MCR 9.115(F)(5), accepted by Tri-County Hearing Panel #13. Johnson admitted that he was convicted by nolo contendere plea of Home Invasion in the Third Degree, a felony under MCL 750.110, in People v. Donovan Rashaad Johnson, 6th Judicial District Court, Case No. 23283146-FH.
The case’s outcome shifted before the discipline proceedings concluded. In December 2024, the court postponed sentencing to November 17, 2025. On that date, in light of Johnson’s compliance with probation terms, the home invasion charge was dismissed. He was sentenced for Disorderly Person, a misdemeanor under MCL 750.167.
The panel found professional misconduct based on the original conviction: engaging in conduct that violated a criminal law of a state, in violation of MCR 9.104(5). The discipline record reflects the charge as it stood at the time of the admission and misconduct finding, not the later reduced sentence.
The Johnson case illustrates a recurring procedural tension in attorney discipline proceedings involving criminal matters: the misconduct finding is anchored to the original conviction, even when the underlying charge is later reduced or dismissed. The panel’s ruling tracks the admission made in the stipulation, not the ultimate criminal disposition. This is standard practice under Michigan’s professional conduct rules but is worth flagging for practitioners tracking how criminal outcomes interact with bar discipline timelines.
Sources
