12 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 1070b
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Discovery — Interrogatories — Medical provider is compelled to provide better answers to interrogatories where answers provided are non-responsive and objections to interrogatories are overruled — Attorney-client and work product privilege objections to interrogatories regarding publications and other materials to be used by provider to support reasonableness of amounts charged are overruled — Objection to interrogatory questioning whether insurer would be reasonable in using computer database of other providers’ charges within zip code to determine reasonable amount to pay is sustained due to overbroad reference to “computer database”
AARON E. THOMAS, Plaintiff, v. PROGRESSIVE EXPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 4th Judicial Circuit in and for Duval County. Case No. 16-2004-SC-1364, Division B. August 5, 2005, nunc pro tunc to July 28, 2005. Roberto A. Arias, Judge. Counsel: David G. Candelaria, Farah, Farah & Abbott, P.A., Jacksonville, for Plaintiff. Patrick J. Snyder, James C. Rinaman, III & Associates, P.A., Jacksonville, for Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL BETTER ANSWERS TO DEFENDANT’S SECOND INTERROGATORIES
THIS CAUSE, came to be heard on July 28, 2005, on the Defendant’s Motion to Compel Better Answers to Defendant’s Second Interrogatories. Present before the Court appeared counsel for Defendant, Patrick J. Snyder, Esquire, and David G. Candelaria, Esquire, counsel for Plaintiff. The Court having reviewed the Motion, having heard the argument of counsel, having reviewed the relevant case law and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, finds:
1. Interrogatory number three (3) requests“For each date of service at issue, please identify what Plaintiff contends was paid improperly and the basis for Plaintiff’s belief that payment was improper.”.
A. Plaintiff’s response was“See explanation of benefits forms prepared by Progressive.”
B. Plaintiff’s answer is non-responsive and objection is overruled. Therefore, Plaintiff must provide a better response.
2. Interrogatory number four (4) requests Plaintiff to “State the exact amount Plaintiff claims to be overdue for each date of service at issue.”
A. Plaintiff’s response was “Unable to determine “exact amount” without my attorney first taking the deposition of Defendant’s claims adjuster.”
B. Plaintiff’s answer is non-responsive and objection is overruled. Therefore, Plaintiff must provide a better response.
3. Interrogatory number five (5) requests Plaintiff to “State the total amount Plaintiff claims to be due.”
A. Plaintiff’s response was“See explanation of benefits forms prepared by Progressive.”
B. Plaintiff’s answer is non-responsive and objection is overruled. Therefore, Plaintiff must provide a better response.
4. Interrogatory number six (6) requests Plaintiff to “State how Plaintiff determined that the amounts charged by Neurotech, Inc., for treatment rendered to Plaintiff, were reasonable.”
A. Plaintiff’s response was“See all medical and billing documentation prepared and submitted by Neurotech, Inc.”
B. Plaintiff’s answer is non-responsive and objection is overruled. Plaintiff bears the burden of proving the amounts paid by Defendant were unreasonable and therefore, Plaintiff must provide a better response.
5. Interrogatory number seven (7) requests “If a publication has been or will be utilized by Plaintiff to support its contention that the amounts charged by Neurotech, Inc., for the CPT codes at issue, were reasonable, please describe in detail how the publication is used.”
A. Plaintiff’s response was“Objection; attorney client privilege and work product privilege.”
B. Plaintiff’s objection is overruled and therefore, Plaintiff must provide a better response.
6. Interrogatory number eight (8) requests “If a publication has been or will be utilized by Plaintiff and the publication indicates a charge range or percentile range of charges in a specific geographic location; please indicate for each CPT code at issue, in the year 2003, the lowest charge or percentile amount Plaintiff contends is a reasonable amount to charge an insured patient pursuant to FLORIDA STATUTE §627.736. (For example: if Plaintiff contends that the 50th percentile amount is reasonable but the 49th percentile amount is not, the Plaintiff should indicate the 50th percentile amount).”
A. Plaintiff’s response was “Objection; attorney client privilege and work product privilege.”
B. Plaintiff’s objection is overruled and therefore, Plaintiff must provide a better response.
7. Interrogatory number nine (9) requests “If a publication has been or will be utilized by Plaintiff and the publication indicates a charge range or percentile range of charges in a specific geographic location; please indicate for each CPT code at issue, in the year 2003, the highest charge or percentile amount Plaintiff contends is not a reasonable amount to charge an insured patient pursuant to FLORIDA STATUTE §627.736. (For example: if Plaintiff contends that the 50th percentile amount is reasonable but the 49th percentile amount is not, the Plaintiff should indicate the 49th percentile amount).”
A. Plaintiff’s response was“Objection; attorney client privilege and work product privilege.”
B. Plaintiff’s objection is overruled and therefore, Plaintiff must provide a better response.
8. Interrogatory number ten (10) requests “In determining the reasonable amount to pay for medical services pursuant to FLORIDA STATUTE §627.736, would Defendant be reasonable in using a computer database of other medical providers charges within the medical provider’s, Neurotech Inc., zipcode?”
A. Plaintiff’s response was“Objection; I do not understand this question.”
B. Plaintiff’s objection is sustained. Defendant’s reference to “a computer database” is over broad. Defendant will file an amended interrogatory specifying “Mitchell’s Medical computer database”. Defendant’s request number eleven and twelve relate to Interrogatory number ten (10) and therefore, Plaintiff’s objections are sustained.
9. Interrogatory number thirteen (13) requests Plaintiff to “List all documents, books, computer software, schedules or other like documents that Plaintiff relies upon or will rely upon to support that the medical provider, Neurotech Inc. charged a reasonable amount for the CPT codes at issue in the present case.”
A. Plaintiff’s response was“Objection; attorney client privilege and work product privilege.”
B. Plaintiff’s objection is overruled and therefore, Plaintiff must provide a better response.
10. Interrogatory number fourteen (14) requests Plaintiff to “List all documents, books, computer software, schedules or other like documents that Plaintiff relies upon or will rely upon to support that the Defendant did not reimburse the medical provider, Neurotech Inc. a reasonable amount for the CPT codes at issue in the present case.”
A. Plaintiff’s response was “Objection; attorney client privilege and work product privilege.”
B. Plaintiff’s objection is overruled and therefore, Plaintiff must provide a better response. Therefore, it is:
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
5. Defendant’s Motion to Compel Better Answers to Defendant’s Second Interrogatories is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall provide Better responses to the above indicated Interrogatories within twenty (20) days.
6. Defendant was not seeking fees and costs pursuant to Florida Rules of Civil Procedure 1.380 and therefore, fees and costs were not considered.
* * *
