10 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 1035a
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Discovery — Documents — Motion to compel better responses to requests to produce correspondence and notations from PIP claims file, information on insured’s physical or mental condition prior to filing of suit, and documentation of amounts paid by insurer to company that recommended usual and customary reductions and to physician performing independent medical examination/peer review or company selecting such physician denied — Motion to compel production of medical reports on insured granted — Interrogatories — Request for better answers to interrogatories regarding identity and role of persons who participated in investigation and selection of IME/peer review physician, insurer’s relationship to IME/peer review physician, total amount paid to IME/peer review physician, identity of persons knowledgeable about computer records showing payments made to IME/peer review physician, and listing of documents used to explain to adjusters policies and procedures for use of IME/peer review physicians denied
CEGA STRESS & ESTHETIC CENTER, as assignee of MARIA BLANCO, Plaintiff, v. PROGRESSIVE EXPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 13th Judicial Circuit in and for Hillsborough County, Small Claims Division. Case No. 03-05087-SC. Division J. September 17, 2003. Gaston J. Fernandez, Judge. Counsel: Jeffrey Coleman, Timothy A. Patrick, P.A., for Plaintiff. Jeffrey R. Davis, Molhem & Fraley, P.A., Tampa, for Defendant.
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL
THIS CAUSE having come before the Court on September 9, 2003, on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel, served under certificate of service dated June 20, 2003, both parties appearing through counsel, and the Court having heard the argument of counsel and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is:
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED;
1. With regard to paragraph two, subpart “e” (2e) of Plaintiff’s Request to Produce, “from your PIP claims file: e) all correspondence written to or received from anyone prior to the filing of this lawsuit, including any insurance agencies, any doctors’ offices, any employers, any agencies hired to select doctors for an ‘Independent Medical Examination’ and any law enforcement agencies;” Plaintiff’s request is hereby DENIED. It is further
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED;
2. With regard to paragraph two, subpart ‘f’ (2f) of Plaintiff’s Request to Produce, “from your PIP claims file: f) any and all PIP forms, including PIP applications, medical report forms, employer verification forms, authorization forms and any other forms contained in said file received prior to the filing of this lawsuit;” Plaintiff’s request is hereby DENIED. It is further
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED;
3. With regard to paragraph three (3) of Plaintiff’s Request to Produce, “copies of any and all forms, notations, correspondence, or reports received by you or any of your agents on your behalf concerning the patient’s medical condition from anyone,” Plaintiff’s request is GRANTED as it relates to medical reports only; DENIED as to notations and correspondence. It is further
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED;
4. With regard to paragraph four (4) of Plaintiff’s Request to Produce, “all correspondence, forms, notations, memorandum or information transmitted by you or received by you in any form whatsoever to or from any physicians’ office or health care providers’ office concerning the patient’s physical and/or mental condition prior to the filing of this lawsuit,” Plaintiff’s request is hereby DENIED. It is further
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED;
5. With regard to paragraph six (6) of Plaintiff’s Request to Produce, “any and all documentation which reflects the total amount of money paid by Defendant in the last three years to Mitchell Medical System, Inc., the company which recommended the usual and customary reductions in this claim,” Plaintiff’s request is hereby DENIED. It is further
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED;
6. With regard to paragraph fourteen (14) of Plaintiff’s Request to Produce, “any and all records reflecting the total amount of money paid by the Defendant in 1999, 2000 and 2001, to any physician who performed an IME and/or peer review in this claim OR any company/vendor hired to select an IME/Peer Review physician,” Plaintiff’s request is hereby DENIED. It is further
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED;
7. With regard to paragraph fifteen (15) of Plaintiff’s Request to Produce, “copies of all checks and/or drafts issued to medical providers and/or IME physicians in this claim,” Plaintiff’s request is hereby DENIED. It is further
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED;
8. With regard to Interrogatory seven (7) of Plaintiff’s First Interrogatories to Defendant, “list the names, residence addresses, business addresses and telephone numbers of all persons who, on your behalf or on behalf of any of your agents, employees, or representatives who have in any way participated in the investigation as well as the selection of the IME or Peer Review doctor in this case (both specifically for this case and generally for your company) and specifically the nature of the participation for each and every such person and give the time period during which they participated,” Defendant does not have to provide a better answer to said interrogatory and Plaintiff’s request is hereby DENIED. It is further
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED;
9. With regard to Interrogatory eight (8) of Plaintiff’s First Interrogatories to Defendant, “state, in detail, what your relationship is with the IME or Peer Review doctor in this case and further state the names and addresses of all persons with knowledge of this relationship, a complete description and exact location of any contracts, writings, memos, reports, records, notes or other documentation pertaining to said relationship, and whether or not this doctor is an agent of yours,” Defendant does not have to provide a better answer to said interrogatory and Plaintiff’s request is hereby DENIED. It is further
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED;
10. With regard to Interrogatory nine (9) of Plaintiff’s First Interrogatories to Defendant, “please provide the total annual amount of money ‘year by year’ paid to the IME or Peer Review doctor hired by you or a vendor hired by you to do the exam/review of the patient in this case for the last three years; list any computer records, accounting records, ledgers, disks, writings, memos, reports, records, notes or any other documentation showing the amounts of the payments made to said physician, including for each the name of the document, the number of pages and the date,” Defendant does not have to provide a better answer to said interrogatory and Plaintiff’s request is hereby DENIED. It is further
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED;
11. With regard to Interrogatory ten (10) of Plaintiff’s First Interrogatories to Defendant, “give the complete names, addresses, phone numbers and job titles of all persons working for you or anyone on your behalf ‘for the period running from one year before the accident and one year after the accident,’ who are knowledgeable about the records that are kept on your computer showing the total payments that were made to the IME or Peer Review doctor hired to examine the patient,” Defendant does not have to provide a better answer to said interrogatory and Plaintiff’s request is hereby DENIED. It is further
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED;
12. With regard to Interrogatory eleven (11) of Plaintiff’s First Interrogatories to Defendant, “provide a complete list of all memos, writing, seminars, audiotapes, videotapes and any other materials used by your company or anyone on your behalf to explain to your own adjusters the policies and procedures by which your company employs the use of IME or Peer Review doctors,” Defendant does not have to provide a better answer to said interrogatory and Plaintiff’s request is hereby DENIED.
* * *
