12 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 880a
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Discovery — Depositions — Motion to limit medical provider’s deposition testimony to reasonableness, relatedness and medical necessity of treatment is denied — Objections are denied to providing curriculum vitae for all physicians at medical provider’s place of business who rendered treatment or testing to insured, reports and databases used to set provider’s fees, copies of any PPO or HMO agreements, HCFA 1500 forms or other statements issued to uninsured persons for CPT codes at issue, explanations of benefits or other documentation indicating reimbursement from all insurers for CPT codes at issue, manuals or brochures on billing procedures, reference materials used for billing, medical director agreements effective on dates of service, provider’s articles of incorporation and bylaws, documents identifying officers, shareholders and directors in corporate entity providing services, all patient referral agreements between provider and insured’s attorney, documentation of any contact with insured or representative of insured prior to insured presenting for treatment, lease agreements for buildings, documentation of compensation to billing clerks, documentation of any interest of provider in other healthcare provider to whom insured was referred and of disclosure of that interest to insured, documentation of percentage of patients other than those referred by provider accepted by healthcare provider to whom insured was referred, and documentation of any landlord-tenant relationship between provider and healthcare provider to whom insured was referred
KERRY HASKINS, M.D. a/a/o TERES KEMP, Plaintiff, vs. PROGRESSIVE CONSUMERS INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign corporation, Defendant. County Court, 13th Judicial Circuit in and for Hillsborough County. Case No. 04-24322. June 6, 2005. Eric R. Myers, Judge. Counsel: Jason Lamoureux, Holland & Lamoureux, P.A., for Plaintiff. Jeffrey R. Davis, Kingsford & Rock, P.A., Tampa, for Defendant.
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS TODEFENDANT’S AMENDED NOTICE OF TAKING VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION DUCES TECUMAND MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
THIS CAUSE having come before the Court on May 10, 2005, on Plaintiff’s Objection to Defendant’s Amended Notice of Taking Videotaped Deposition Duces Tecum and Motion for Protective Order, served under Certificate of Service dated April 28, 2005, both parties occurring through counsel and the Court having heard argument of counsel, and being otherwise fully advised on the premises and the law, it is hereby:
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:
1. That Plaintiff’s Ore Tenus Motion to Limit the Oral Testimony of Dr. Haskins to the specific areas of reasonableness, relatedness, and medical necessity of the services provided by Dr. Haskins is hereby DENIED.
2. With regard to Paragraph number three (3) of Attachment “A” of Defendant’s Amended Notice of Taking Videotaped Deposition Duces Tecum, “a current curriculum vitae of all physicians at provider’s place of business who rendered any treatment or testing to the patient referenced above,” the Court finds that the requested documents are not irrelevant or unduly burdensome and the request as phrased is not over broad, and is not meant to annoy, embarrass, oppress or burden the Plaintiff and therefore, Defendant’s request is hereby GRANTED. Plaintiff’s Objection to and Motion for Protective Order from is hereby DENIED. Plaintiff is to provide said documentation as requested or is to identify “none” if said documentation does not exist.
3. With regard to Paragraph number four (4) of Attachment “A” of Defendant’s Amended Notice of Taking Videotaped Deposition Duces Tecum, “all documents, reports, surveys, databases, writings, memorandums, etc., which the provider used in setting his fees for the time period including twenty-four (24) months prior to the first date of services provided to the patient referenced above and twelve (12) months following the last date of service to the patient referenced above,” the Court finds that the requested documents are not irrelevant or unduly burdensome and the request as phrased is not over broad, and is not meant to annoy, embarrass, oppress or burden the Plaintiff and therefore, Defendant’s request is hereby GRANTED. Plaintiff’s Objection to and Motion for Protective Order from is hereby DENIED. Plaintiff is to provide said documentation as requested or is to identify “none” if said documentation does not exist. If the Plaintiff determines that the cost involved in producing said documents is significant, the Plaintiff may file an affidavit with the Court attesting to such cost and requesting reimbursement for same.
4. With regard to Paragraph number five (5) of Attachment “A” of Defendant’s Amended Notice of Taking Videotaped Deposition Duces Tecum, “copies of all HMO and PPO agreements between provider (or any entity to which the provider provided medical services) and any managed care provider, HMO, PPO, or others, in effect on the date of service at issue,” the Court finds that the requested documents are not irrelevant or unduly burdensome and the request as phrased is not over broad, and is not meant to annoy, embarrass, oppress or burden the Plaintiff and therefore, Defendant’s request is hereby GRANTED. Plaintiff’s Objection to and Motion for Protective Order from is hereby DENIED. Plaintiff is to provide said documentation as requested or is to identify “none” if said documentation does not exist. If the Plaintiff determines that the cost involved in producing said documents is significant, the Plaintiff may file an affidavit with the Court attesting to such cost and requesting reimbursement for same.
5. With regard to Paragraph number six (6) of Attachment “A” of
Defendant’s Amended Notice of Taking Videotaped Deposition Duces Tecum, “copies of all HCFA, 1500 forms or other statements issued to uninsured persons for the CPT code(s) at issue in this case for a thirty day (30) period before, and a thirty day (30) day period after the date(s) of service at issue (patient name may be redacted to protect privacy),” the Court finds that the requested documents are not irrelevant or unduly burdensome and the request as phrased is not over broad, and is not meant to annoy, embarrass, oppress or burden the Plaintiff and therefore, Defendant’s request is hereby GRANTED. Plaintiff’s Objection to and Motion for Protective Order from is hereby DENIED. Plaintiff is to provide said documentation as requested or is to identify “none” if said documentation does not exist. If the Plaintiff determines that the cost involved in producing said documents is significant, the Plaintiff may file an affidavit with the Court attesting to such cost and requesting reimbursement for same.
6. With regard to Paragraph number seven (7) of Attachment “A” of Defendant’s Amended Notice of Taking Videotaped Deposition Duces Tecum, “any and all explanation of benefits or other documentation in the providers possession indicating reimbursement from any and all insurers for the CPT code(s) at issue in this case for a thirty (30) day period before, and a thirty (30) day period after the date(s) of service at issue (patient name may be redacted to protect patient privacy),” the Court finds that the requested documents are not irrelevant or unduly burdensome and the request as phrased is not meant to annoy, embarrass, oppress or burden the Plaintiff and therefore, Defendant’s request is hereby GRANTED IN PART, such that the Plaintiff is to provide five (5) explanations of benefits from each insurance company that provided said explanation of benefits during the time frame indicated in paragraph seven (7) of Attachment “A” of Defendant’s Amended Notice of Taking Videotaped Deposition Duces Tecum. Plaintiff’s Objection to and Motion for Protective Order from is hereby GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Plaintiff is to provide said documentation as requested, and as specified by the Court, or is to identify “none” if said documentation does not exist. If the Plaintiff determines that the cost involved in producing said documents is significant, the Plaintiff may file an affidavit with the Court attesting to such cost and requesting reimbursement for same.
7. With regard to Paragraph number eight (8) of Attachment “A” of Defendant’s Amended Notice of Taking Videotaped Deposition Duces Tecum, “A copy of the resume of the person in your office(s) responsible for the billing of the insured’s treatment,” Plaintiff’s objection to the documents requested in paragraph eight (8) is WITHDRAWN and Plaintiff agrees to produce said documents at the deposition of Dr. Haskins. If the documents are not in the care, custody or control of Dr. Haskins, the Plaintiff is allowed to advise the Defendant of same, on the record, at said deposition.
8. With regard to Paragraph number nine (9) of Attachment “A” of Defendant’s Amended Notice of Taking Videotaped Deposition Duces Tecum, “Copies of any manuals, leaflets, or brochures on billing procedures maintained in your offices,” the Court finds that the requested documents are not irrelevant or unduly burdensome and the request as phrased is not over broad, and is not meant to annoy, embarrass, oppress or burden the Plaintiff and therefore, Defendant’s request is hereby GRANTED. Plaintiff’s Objection to and Motion for Protective Order from is hereby DENIED. Plaintiff is to provide said documentation as requested or is to identify “none” if said documentation does not exist. If the Plaintiff determines that the cost involved in producing said documents is significant, the Plaintiff may file an affidavit with the Court attesting to such cost and requesting reimbursement for same. The Court further finds that the documents requested in paragraph nine (9) falls under the gamut of those documents requested in paragraph four (4) referred to above.
9. With regard to Paragraph number ten (10) of Attachment “A” of Defendant’s Amended Notice of Taking Videotaped Deposition Duces Tecum, “All reference materials used in your offices for billing, including CPT Code books or the like,” the Court finds that the requested documents are not irrelevant or unduly burdensome and the request as phrased is not over broad, and is not meant to annoy, embarrass, oppress or burden the Plaintiff and therefore, Defendant’s request is hereby GRANTED. Plaintiff’s Objection to and Motion for Protective Order from is hereby DENIED. Plaintiff is to provide said documentation as requested or is to identify “none” if said documentation does not exist. If the Plaintiff determines that the cost involved in producing said documents is significant, the Plaintiff may file an affidavit with the Court attesting to such cost and requesting reimbursement for same. The Court further finds that the documents requested in paragraph ten (10) falls under the gamut of those documents requested in paragraph four (4) refer to above.
10. With regard to Paragraph number fourteen (14) of Attachment “A” of Defendant’s Amended Notice of Taking Videotaped Deposition Duces Tecum, “Copies of all Medical Director agreements in effect on the date(s) of service to the patient referenced above,” the Court finds that the requested documents are not irrelevant or unduly burdensome and the request as phrased is not over broad, and is not meant to annoy, embarrass, oppress or burden the Plaintiff and therefore, Defendant’s request is hereby GRANTED. Plaintiff’s Objection to and Motion for Protective Order from is hereby DENIED. Plaintiff is to provide said documentation as requested or is to identify “none” if said documentation does not exist. If the Plaintiff determines that the cost involved in producing said documents is significant, the Plaintiff may file an affidavit with the Court attesting to such cost and requesting reimbursement for same.
11. With regard to Paragraph number seventeen (17) of Attachment “A” of Defendant’s Amended Notice of Taking Videotaped Deposition Duces Tecum, “Documentation evidencing the scope of services performed by Kerry Haskins, M.D. or under Kerry Haskins, M.D.’s supervision,” based on Plaintiff’s assertion that it has provided said documents to Defendant already, Plaintiff’s Objection to and Motion for Protective Order from is hereby GRANTED. Defendant’s request is hereby DENIED, WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Court further rules that the Defendant may seek recourse through the Court if it determines through the course of ongoing discovery that the documents requested in paragraph seventeen (17) have not been produced or are required for the defense of its case.
12. With regard to Paragraph number eighteen (18) of Attachment “A” of Defendant’s Amended Notice of Taking Videotaped Deposition Duces Tecum, “A copy of your Articles of Incorporation and/or By-Laws in effect on the date(s) of service,” the Court finds that the requested documents are not irrelevant or unduly burdensome and the request as phrased is not over broad, and is not meant to annoy, embarrass, oppress or burden the Plaintiff and therefore, Defendant’s request is hereby GRANTED. Plaintiff’s Objection to and Motion for Protective Order from is hereby DENIED. Plaintiff is to provide said documentation as requested or is to identify “none” if said documentation does not exist. If the Plaintiff determines that the cost involved in producing said documents is significant, the Plaintiff may file an affidavit with the Court attesting to such cost and requesting reimbursement for same.
13. With regard to Paragraph number nineteen (19) of Attachment “A” of Defendant’s Amended Notice of Taking Videotaped Deposition Duces Tecum, “Documentation evidencing all officers, shareholders, and directors in the corporate entity providing services to the above-named patient,” the Court finds that the requested documents are not irrelevant or unduly burdensome and the request as phrased is not over broad, and is not meant to annoy, embarrass, oppress or burden the Plaintiff and therefore, Defendant’s request is hereby GRANTED. Plaintiff’s Objection to and Motion for Protective Order from is hereby DENIED. Plaintiff is to provide said documentation as requested or is to identify “none” if said documentation does not exist. If the Plaintiff determines that the cost involved in producing said documents is significant, the Plaintiff may file an affidavit with the Court attesting to such cost and requesting reimbursement for same.
14. With regard to Paragraph number twenty (20) of Attachment “A” of Defendant’s Amended Notice of Taking Videotaped Deposition Duces Tecum, “Copies of all patient referral agreements between the provider and the attorney representing the insured in effect on the date(s) of service to the patient referenced above,” the Court finds that the requested documents are not irrelevant or unduly burdensome and the request as phrased is not over broad, and is not meant to annoy, embarrass, oppress or burden the Plaintiff and therefore, Defendant’s request is hereby GRANTED. Plaintiff’s Objection to and Motion for Protective Order from is hereby DENIED. Plaintiff is to provide said documentation as requested or is to identify “none” if said documentation does not exist. If the Plaintiff determines that the cost involved in producing said documents is significant, the Plaintiff may file an affidavit with the Court attesting to such cost and requesting reimbursement for same.
15. With regard to Paragraph number twenty-one (21) of Attachment “A” of Defendant’s Amended Notice of Taking Videotaped Deposition Duces Tecum, “Copies documenting any informational materials, advertisements, phone calls, fax transmissions or any other contact, direct or indirect with the patient referenced above or any family member, representative, or intermediary of any kind, prior to the patient presenting at provider’s office for initial treatment,” the Court finds that the requested documents are not irrelevant or unduly burdensome and the request as phrased is not over broad, and is not meant to annoy, embarrass, oppress or burden the Plaintiff and therefore, Defendant’s request is hereby GRANTED. Plaintiff’s Objection to and Motion for Protective Order from is hereby DENIED. Plaintiff is to provide said documentation as requested or is to identify “none” if said documentation does not exist. If the Plaintiff determines that the cost involved in producing said documents is significant, the Plaintiff may file an affidavit with the Court attesting to such cost and requesting reimbursement for same.
16. With regard to Paragraph number thirty-four (34) of Attachment “A” of Defendant’s Amended Notice of Taking Videotaped Deposition Duces Tecum, “Documentation of any and all payment or compensation to any other person or entity in connection with the performance of the service, including, but not limited to any rental or lease arrangements,” the Court finds that the requested documents are not irrelevant or unduly burdensome and the request as phrased is not meant to annoy, embarrass, oppress or burden the Plaintiff and therefore, Defendant’s request is hereby GRANTED IN PART, such that the Plaintiff shall produce said documents pertaining to any and all billing clerks utilized by the Plaintiff and any and all agreements, lease agreements or other such type documents pertaining to the physical building in which Dr. Haskins performed any and all services to the insured, Teres Kemp. Plaintiff’s Objection to and Motion for Protective Order from is hereby GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Plaintiff is to provide said documentation as requested, and as specified by the Court, or is to identify “none” if said documentation does not exist. If the Plaintiff determines that the cost involved in producing said documents is significant, the Plaintiff may file an affidavit with the Court attesting to such cost and requesting reimbursement for same. The Court further rules that the Defendant may seek recourse through the Court to request further documentation as requested in paragraph thirty-four (34) of Attachment “A” if during the course of discovery the defendant determines that it needs said documents to support the defense of its case.
17. With regard to Paragraph number thirty-five (35) of Attachment “A” of Defendant’s Amended Notice of Taking Videotaped Deposition Duces Tecum, “Documentation evidencing any ownership, investment, and/or equal interest of Kerry Haskins, M.D. in any other healthcare provider to whom Kerry Haskins, M.D. or Kerry Haskins, M.D.’s employee referred the patient referenced above for healthcare, goods, or services,” the Court finds that the requested documents are not irrelevant or unduly burdensome and the request as phrased is not over broad, and is not meant to annoy, embarrass, oppress or burden the Plaintiff and therefore, Defendant’s request is hereby GRANTED. Plaintiff’s Objection to and Motion for Protective Order from is hereby DENIED. Plaintiff is to provide said documentation as requested or is to identify “none” if said documentation does not exist. If the Plaintiff determines that the cost involved in producing said documents is significant, the Plaintiff may file an affidavit with the Court attesting to such cost and requesting reimbursement for same.
18. With regard to Paragraph number thirty-six (36) of Attachment “A” of Defendant’s Amended Notice of Taking Videotaped Deposition Duces Tecum, “Documentation evidencing disclosure to the patient of any ownership, investment, and/or equity interest of Kerry Haskins, M.D. in any other healthcare provider to whom Kerry Haskins, M.D. or Kerry Haskins, M.D.’s employee referred the patient referenced above for healthcare, goods or services,” the Court finds that the requested documents are not irrelevant or unduly burdensome and the request as phrased is not over broad, and is not meant to annoy, embarrass, oppress or burden the Plaintiff and therefore, Defendant’s request is hereby GRANTED. Plaintiff’s Objection to and Motion for Protective Order from is hereby DENIED. Plaintiff is to provide said documentation as requested or is to identify “none” if said documentation does not exist. If the Plaintiff determines that the cost involved in producing said documents is significant, the Plaintiff may file an affidavit with the Court attesting to such cost and requesting reimbursement for same.
19. With regard to Paragraph number thirty-seven (37) of Attachment “A” of Defendant’s Amended Notice of Taking Videotaped Deposition Duces Tecum, “Documents evidencing the percentage of patients other than that of Kerry Haskins, M.D. accepted by the healthcare provider to which Kerry Haskins, M.D. referred the patient referenced above, for the 12-month period preceding the date(s) of service,” the Court finds that the requested documents are not irrelevant or unduly burdensome and the request as phrased is not over broad, and is not meant to annoy, embarrass, oppress or burden the Plaintiff and therefore, Defendant’s request is hereby GRANTED IN PART, such that, said documents shall encompass a six (6) month period preceding preceding the date(s) of service. Plaintiff’s Objection to and Motion for Protective Order from is hereby GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Plaintiff is to provide said documentation as requested and as specified by the Court or is to identify “none” if said documentation does not exist. If the Plaintiff determines that the cost involved in producing said documents is significant, the Plaintiff may file an affidavit with the Court attesting to such cost and requesting reimbursement for same.
20. With regard to Paragraph number thirty-eight (38) of Attachment “A” of Defendant’s Amended Notice of Taking Videotaped Deposition Duces Tecum, “Documents evidencing any landlord-tenant relationship between Kerry Haskins, M.D. and the health care provider to whom referred the above referenced patient, and the calculation of fair market value of rent paid,” the Court finds that the requested documents are not irrelevant or unduly burdensome and the request as phrased is not over broad, and is not meant to annoy, embarrass, oppress or burden the Plaintiff and therefore, Defendant’s request is hereby GRANTED. Plaintiff’s Objection to and Motion for Protective Order from is hereby DENIED. Plaintiff is to provide said documentation as requested or is to identify “none” if said documentation does not exist. If the Plaintiff determines that the cost involved in producing said documents is significant, the Plaintiff may file an affidavit with the Court attesting to such cost and requesting reimbursement for same.
* * *
