11 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 250a
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Discovery — Interrogatories — Objections to interrogatories seeking information on amounts paid to peer review physician; cases in which physician has testified; number of peer reviews conducted by physician in past for insurer or anyone on behalf of defense; work performed generally by physician for insurer, plaintiffs or defendants; portion of physician’s professional time devoted to service as peer reviewer or expert; and PIP cases involving insurer in which corporate representatives of medical exam company that hired physician have testified are overruled
JACKIE WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, vs. ALLSTATE INDEMNITY CO., Defendant. County Court, 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County. Case No. SS-2-10641-RD. January 14, 2004. Charles E. Burton, Judge. Counsel: Michael S. Bendell, Boca Raton, for Plaintiff. Michelle Barton, Tolgyesi, Katz, Hankin & Katz, Hollywood, for Defendant.
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION to COMPEL BETTER ANSWER TO INTERROGATORIES
THIS matter came before the court on January 9, 2004 on Plaintiff’s motion to compel better answers to “INTERROGATORIES TO DEFENDANT dated November 7, 2003 (Friday)” and after argument of counsel, it is ADJUDGED THAT:
# Ruling
6 Overruled
7 Overruled
3 Overruled
4 Overruled
5 Overruled
9 Overruled
To each question to which an objection is overruled or overruled in part, Def. Allstate shall serve a better answer which is completely responsive to the question under oath and in writing within 21 days. No further objections are permitted.
BACKGROUND
This is a PIP law suit for non-payment of medical bills from Dr. Bailyn. Defense had the bills and medical reports reviewed by Dr. Fischer from Miami. Allegedly Concentra Medical Exams (CME) hired Dr. Fischer. Plaintiff served interrogatories, and defense objected or responded to each.
INTERROGATORIES IN DISPUTE
6. For the entire United States, for all cases, and during the preceding 3 years, did you, your insurance company, your attorneys, agents or anyone on behalf of the defense pay or promise to pay any KENNETH FISCHER, M.D? If so, indicate the amount of money paid or promised to be paid for each of the last 3 years.
RESPONSE: Objection: vague, ambiguous, irrelevant, immaterial, harassing, burdensome, unintelligible, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissable evidence.
7. For KENNETH FISCHER, M.D, please identify specifically each case in which he or she has actually testified, whether by deposition or at trial, listing the case name, case number, court name, names of attorneys, whether you testified by deposition, at trial, or both. (Limit to going back no more than three years.)
RESPONSE: Objection; irrelevant, immaterial, harassing, burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissable evidence. However, without waving said objections, the Defendant asserts that Dr. Kenneth Fischer testified for trial and/or depositions about 45 times last year.
3. With respect to the plaintiff in this case, did you, your attorneys, agents, insurance company or anyone on behalf of the defense select or participate in the selection of KENNETH FISCHER, M.D. to provide a review of records or to conduct a peer review? If so, indicate whether you, your attorneys, agents or anyone on behalf of the defense (including your insurance company) have ever used that expert or doctor in the past to provided expert witness services or review for purposes of a personal injury claim of any kind and indicated the number of each such review conducted within the past four years.
RESPONSE: Objection; compound.
With respect to whether anyone on behalf of the defense select or participate in the selection of Kenneth Fischer, MD to provide a review of records or document a peer review, the defendant asserts No.
With respect to whether the Defendant, Defendant’s attorneys, agent or anyone on behalf of the defense (including the insurance company) ever used Kenneth Fishcer, MD in the past to provide expert witness services or review for purposes of a personal injury claim of any kind, the Defendant asserts that the request is overly broad, harassing, unduly burdensome, irrelevant, and immaterial to the allegations contained in Plaintiff’s Complaint. An affidavit in support of the unduly burdensome objection will be filed under separate cover.
4. For KENNETH FISCHER, M.D, what generally does such doctor do in terms of the work preformed for the plaintiffs, defendants, for insurance companies or some percentage of each?
RESPONSE: Objection: compound and harassing.
Furthermore, Dr. Kenneth Fischer does not perform work for the Defendant directly.
However, without waving said objections, the Defendant asserts that Dr. Kenneth Fischer MD is a board certified neurologist. Pursuant to Rule 1.340(c), attached is a copy of Dr. Kenneth Fischer’s Curriculum Vitae.
5. For KENNETH FISCHER, M.D, please provide an approximation of the portion of their professional time or work devoted to service as peer reviewer or expert. (Limitation: This can be a fair estimate of some reasonable and truthful component of that work, such as hours expended, or percentage of income earned from that source, or approximate number of IME’s or paper reviews that he or she preforms in one year).
____ %of professional time or work devoted to service as peer review an or expert ,
____ # approximate number of peer reviews performed in last year.
RESPONSE: Objection: irrelevant, immaterial, harassing, burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissable evidence.
However, without waiving said objections, the Defendant asserts that less than 1% of Dr. Kenneth Fischer’s professional time or work is devoted to service as a peer review and Dr. Fischer conducted approximately 30 peer reviews last year.
9. Please state specially each case in which Concentra corporate representatives have actually testified in PIP cases involving ALLSTATE INDEMNITY CO. or Allstate Insurance Co. by way of deposition or trial for the last 3 years, listing the case name, case number, county or circuit, and the plaintiff’s attorney name.
Objection: irrelevant, immaterial, harassing, burdensome, irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The Defendant asserts that it does not have this information readily available and the creation of such a document would be unduly burdensome.
* * *
