13 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 343a
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Discovery — Interrogatories — Medical provider is compelled to provide better answers to interrogatories requesting names of health insurers with which provider admits it has contracts to accept agreed-upon rates and amounts accepted from each such insurer for CPT codes at issue
BACK INTO HEALTH CHIROPRACTIC, INC. d/b/a MIND, BODY, SPIRIT WELLNESS CENTER, (as assignee of Danielle Smithgall), Plaintiff, v. PROGRESSIVE EXPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 4th Judicial Circuit in and for Duval County, Small Claims Court. Case No. 16-2003-SC-008364, Division B. December 22, 2005. Roberto A. Arias, Judge. Counsel: David G. Candelaria, Farah, Farah & Abbott, P.A., Jacksonville, for Plaintiff. Patrick J. Snyder, Rinaman & Associates, P.A., Jacksonville, for Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL BETTER ANSWERS TO DEFENDANT’SSECOND INTERROGATORIES
THIS CAUSE, came to be heard on December 7, 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 one (1), requests “As in your Admission of Defendant’s Request for Admissions number ten (#10), in which you state “Plaintiff accepted the agreed upon rate as payment from those insurers with whom the Plaintiff has a contract”, please list all insurers that Plaintiff has a contract with as referred to above.”
A. Plaintiff’s response was “objection, — the information being sought is immaterial, and not relevant to the subject matter of the pending act and, is therefore, outside the scope of permissible discovery pursuant to Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(b).” At the hearing, Plaintiff also objected to the discovery sought as the information was confidential and disclosure of the requested information would interfere with his client’s ability to contract confidentially.
B. Plaintiff’s objection is overruled and therefore, Plaintiff must answer the Interrogatory.
2. Interrogatory number two (2) requests “As in your Admission of Defendant’s Request for Admissions number thirteen (#13), in which you state “Plaintiff has a contract with other health insurers in which the Plaintiff accepts agreed upon rates as payment for treatment rendered”, please list the amount the Plaintiff accepted from each health insurer referred to above for CPT code 98941 and CPT code 99203 during the year 2003.”
A. Plaintiff’s response was“objection, — the information being sought is immaterial, and not relevant to the subject matter of the pending act and, is therefore, outside the scope of permissible discovery pursuant to Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(b).”Again, at the hearing Plaintiff also objected to the discovery sought as the information was confidential and disclosure of the requested information would interfere with his client’s ability to contract confidentially.
B. Plaintiff’s objection is overruled and therefore, Plaintiff must answer the Interrogatory.
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 from the date of this hearing.
6. Plaintiff’s ore tenus motion for Protective Order is granted. Defendant is hereby ordered not to divulge the information provided in response to this order to other health insurers. Plaintiff’s responses will not be filed in the court file unless under seal.
* * *
