10 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 909a
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Discovery — Interrogatories — Insurer’s motion to compel better responses from medical provider to questions about amounts provider accepts from other sources in payment of services is granted — Where issue in case is reasonableness of medical provider’s charges for treatment rendered to insured, insurer must be able to compare fees provider accepts from other sources to evaluate reasonableness of charges billed to insurer, and therefore, questions about amounts accepted from other sources are reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence
M.W. KILGORE, M.D. (as assignee for Thomas Halliday), Plaintiff, v. PROGRESSIVE EXPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 4th Judicial Circuit in and for Duval County. Case No. 16-2003-CC-002029. Division L. September 22, 2003. Harold C. Arnold, Judge. Counsel: Daniel C. Shaughnessy, Robert P. Eshelman, P.A., Jacksonville, for Plaintiff. Glenn S. Banner, McConnaughhay, Duffy, Coonrod, Pope & Weaver, P.A., Jacksonville, for Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL BETTER RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S INTERROGATORIES
This matter coming before this Court on September 10, 2003 on Defendant’s Motion to Compel Better Responses to Defendant’s Interrogatories and the Court having considered the record, having heard argument of counsel and otherwise being duly advised on the premise, it is
ORDERED and ADJUDGED as follows:
1. Defendant’s Motion to Compel Better Responses to Defendant’s Interrogatories is hereby GRANTED.
2. The Plaintiff, a medical provider as assignee of Defendant’s insured brought suit for unpaid PIP benefits.
3. On July 18, 2003, Defendant propounded Interrogatories to Plaintiff.
4. Plaintiff, objects to Interrogatory number 1, which requests the amounts the Plaintiff accepts in payment for dates of service at issues from Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Florida for CPT codes at issue. The issue of this case is the reasonableness of Plaintiff’s charges for medical treatment rendered to Defendant’s insured. The Defendant must be able to compare the fees Plaintiff accepts from other sources to evaluate the reasonableness of the charges billed to Defendant. This request is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The Plaintiff must provide a response to Interrogatory number 1.
5. Plaintiff objects to Interrogatory number 2, which requests the amounts the Plaintiff accepts in payment for dates of service at issues from Aetna Insurance for CPT codes at issue. The issue of this case is the reasonableness of Plaintiff’s charges for medical treatment rendered to Defendant’s insured. The Defendant must be able to compare the fees Plaintiff accepts from other sources to evaluate the reasonableness of the charges billed to Defendant. This request is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The Plaintiff must provide a response to Interrogatory number 2.
6. Plaintiff objects to Interrogatory number 3, which requests the amounts the Plaintiff accepts in payment for dates of service at issues from Beech Street Corporation for CPT codes at issue. The issue of this case is the reasonableness of Plaintiff’s charges for medical treatment rendered to Defendant’s insured. The Defendant must be able to compare the fees Plaintiff accepts from other sources to evaluate the reasonableness of the charges billed to Defendant. This request is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The Plaintiff must provide a response to Interrogatory number 3.
7. The Plaintiff must provide a response to Interrogatory number 6 based on the information available at this time. Plaintiff shall be permitted to amend its response to the extent new information becomes available through the discovery process.
8. The Plaintiff shall provide Defendant with better responses to Interrogatories within ten (“10”) days from the date this Order is executed.
* * *
