10 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 733d
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Discovery — Production of documents — Motion to compel production of surveillance films, photographs, and reports; statements of witnesses taken by insurer; photographs of vehicle damage and scene of accident; estimates of repairs or statements concerning nature and extent of damage to vehicles; writing reflecting insurer’s examination of vehicles; claims history reports, and other investigative reports is denied as such documents are privileged — Motion to compel production of documents reflecting monies paid insurer to company recommending usual and customary reductions in claim is denied as documents are irrelevant — Motion to compel production of records reflecting money paid in past three years to physician who performed independent medical examination or peer review is denied — Interrogatories — Insurer does not have to answer interrogatory requesting information on each medical bill not paid in full — Request for specification regarding privileges claimed is denied where insurer has already filed privilege log — Insurer is not required to answer interrogatories seeking identification of computer program used to review claim, description of how program is supposed to work, description of relationship with company that sold or supplied program, identification of person with most knowledge of program and how it is used, list of materials used to train personnel in use of program, list of personnel knowledgeable about technical aspects of program, list of documents that provide technical information on program, description of program database, list of forms associated with program use, list of reports generated by program, and description of computer program license agreement as interrogatories seek privileged information
PHYSICAL MEDICINE CENTER, as assignee of THOMAS DICKSON, Plaintiff, v. PROGRESSIVE EXPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 13th Judicial Circuit in and for Hillsborough County, Small Claims Division. Case No. 02-SC-25351. Division K. July 17, 2003. Eric R. Myers, Judge. Counsel: Erik Gillespie, for Plaintiff. Jeffrey R. Davis, Molhem & Fraley, P.A., Tampa, for Defendant.
[Editor’s note: See 12 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 210c.]
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL
THIS CAUSE having come before the Court on June 9, 2003, on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel, served under certificate of service dated April 11, 2003, and the Court having heard the argument of counsel and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is:
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:
1. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel is hereby DENIED. It is further ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that;
2. With regard to paragraph number five (5) of Plaintiff’s Request to Produce, “Any and all surveillance reports, claims history reports or other investigative reports prepared by you or on your behalf with regard to the patient,” Plaintiff’s request is hereby DENIED as such documents are privileged. It is further ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that;
3. With regard to paragraph number 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 the company or system, which recommended the usual and customary reductions in this claim,” Plaintiff’s request is hereby DENIED as such documents are irrelevant. It is further ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that;
4. With regard to paragraph number seven (7) of Plaintiff’s Request to Produce, “Any and all surveillance films or photographs taken by you or anyone on your behalf with regard to the patient,” Plaintiff’s request is hereby DENIED as such documents are privileged. It is further ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that;
5. With regard to paragraph number nine (9) of Plaintiff’s Request to Produce, “Any and all oral or written statements taken by the Defendant of any witnesses with regard to any fact relevant to any fact in this case, such as was taken prior to the filing of suit in this matter,” Plaintiff’s request is hereby DENIED as such documents are privileged. It is further ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that;
6. With regard to paragraph number ten (10) of Plaintiff’s Request to Produce, “Any and all photographs taken by the Defendant showing the extent of damage to any of the vehicles involved in the accident as were taken prior to the filing of suit,” Plaintiff’s request is hereby DENIED as such documents are privileged. It is further ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that;
7. With regard to paragraph number eleven (11) of Plaintiff’s Request to Produce, “Any and all photographs taken by the Defendant of the scene of the accident at any time prior to the filing of suit,” Plaintiff’s request is hereby DENIED as such documents are privileged. It is further ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that;
8. With regard to paragraph number twelve (12) of Plaintiff’s Request to Produce, “Any and all estimates of repair or statements concerning the nature and extent of damage to any of the vehicles involved in the accident,” Plaintiff’s request is hereby DENIED as such documents are privileged. It is further ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that;
9. With regard to paragraph number thirteen (13) of Plaintiff’s Request to Produce, “Any and all writings, memorandum, notes or other materials reflecting examination by the Defendant of any of the vehicles involved in the accident,” Plaintiff’s request is hereby DENIED as such documents are privileged. It is further ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that;
10. With regard to paragraph number fourteen (14) of Plaintiff’s Request to Produce, “Any and all records reflecting the total amount of money paid in the last three years by Defendant to any physician who performed an IME and/or peer review in this claim,” Plaintiff’s request is hereby DENIED. It is further ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that;
11. With regard to Interrogatory number three (3) of Plaintiff’s First Interrogatories to Defendant, “For each medical bill that was not paid in full under the PIP coverage of the policy at issue in this case since the first notice of claim, please state the date of denial/reduction of the bill, the name of the provider, the date(s) of service, the amount of the bill and the date each bill was received,” Defendant does not have to answer and Plaintiff’s request is hereby DENIED. It is further ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that;
12. With regard to Interrogatory number eight (8) of Plaintiff’s First Interrogatories to Defendant, “With regard to Plaintiff’s First Request to Produce herein, for each separate item on the Request to Produce which you are withholding production claiming any privilege (work product/attorney-client/etc.), please state with respect to each such document the following:
A. the type of document involved and its general subject matter without disclosing its contents;
B. the number of pages of the document;
C. the date of the document;
D. the privilege upon which you rely in withholding the documents; Plaintiff’s request is hereby DENIED as Defendant has served and filed a Privilege Log. It is further ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that;
13. With regard to Interrogatory number nine (9) of Plaintiff’s First Interrogatories to Defendant, “Describe the type of computer program that was used to review the claim for medical services submitted in this case giving the actual name and model number together with the name and address of the company that sold or supplied the software,” Defendant does not have to answer and Plaintiff’s request is hereby DENIED as such Interrogatory seeks information which is privileged. It is further ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that;
14. With regard to Interrogatory number ten (10) of Plaintiff’s First Interrogatories to Defendant, “Describe how the computer program that was used to review the claim for medical services submitted in this case is supposed to work,” Defendant does not have to answer and Plaintiff’s request is hereby DENIED as such Interrogatory seeks information which is privileged. It is further ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that;
15. With regard to Interrogatory number eleven (11) of Plaintiff’s First Interrogatories to Defendant, “Describe your relationship to the company that sold or supplied the computer program described above and give a description and exact location of any contracts, writings, memos, reports, records, notes or any other documentation pertaining to said relationship,” Defendant does not have to answer and Plaintiff’s request is hereby DENIED as such Interrogatory seeks information which is privileged. It is further ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that;
16. With regard to Interrogatory number twelve (12) of Plaintiff’s First Interrogatories to Defendant, “List the name and job title of the person with the most knowledge of the use of the above computer program and how it is used by your personnel,” Defendant does not have to answer and Plaintiff’s request is hereby DENIED as such Interrogatory seeks information which is privileged. It is further ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that;
17. With regard to Interrogatory number thirteen (13) of Plaintiff’s First Interrogatories to Defendant, “List all internal memos, seminars, audio tapes and video tapes used by your training personnel to explain to your adjusters the use of computer software described above for the review of claims,” Defendant does not have to answer and Plaintiff’s request is hereby DENIED as such Interrogatory seeks information which is privileged. It is further ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that;
18. With regard to Interrogatory number fourteen (14) of Plaintiff’s First Interrogatories to Defendant, “List the names and job titles of all personnel working for you for the period running from one year before the accident and one year after the accident who are knowledgeable about the technical aspects of the above computer program (hardware & software) and how it works,” Defendant does not have to answer and Plaintiff’s request is hereby DENIED as such Interrogatory seeks information which is privileged. It is further ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that;
19. With regard to Interrogatory number fifteen (15) of Plaintiff’s First Interrogatories to Defendant, “List all documents that provide technical information on the installation, maintenance and operation of the computer program described above listing for each the name of the document, the number of pages of each document and the date of each document,” Defendant does not have to answer and Plaintiff’s request is hereby DENIED as such Interrogatory seeks information which is privileged. It is further ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that;
20. With regard to Interrogatory number sixteen (16) of Plaintiff’s First Interrogatories to Defendant, “If the above computer program involves the use of a database, describe the database and how that provides any reliable information for reviewing of Florida PIP claims,” Defendant does not have to answer and Plaintiff’s request is hereby DENIED as such Interrogatory seeks information which is privileged. It is further ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that;
21. With regard to Interrogatory number seventeen (17) of Plaintiff’s First Interrogatories to Defendant, “List all forms that are associated with the use of the computer program listing for each the name of each form, the number of pages of each form and the date of each form,” Defendant does not have to answer and Plaintiff’s request is hereby DENIED as such Interrogatory seeks information which is privileged. It is further ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that;
22. With regard to Interrogatory number eighteen (18) of Plaintiff’s First Interrogatories to Defendant, “State whether the above computer program has the ability to generate reports and, if so, list each type of report and describe the type of information it contains,” Defendant does not have to answer and Plaintiff’s request is hereby DENIED as such Interrogatory seeks information which is privileged. It is further ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that;
23. With regard to Interrogatory number nineteen (19) of Plaintiff’s First Interrogatories to Defendant, “Have you, or any related affiliated companies, signed a license agreement with National Biosystems, Inc. as part of your computer program to review claims? If so, state whether it included: hardware, software, installation, and end-user materials for the computer program that was used in this case and the date of the agreement,” Defendant does not have to answer and Plaintiff’s request is hereby DENIED as such Interrogatory seeks information which is privileged.
* * *
