13 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 1007a
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Discovery — Admissions — Requests that insurer admit that it had allowed amounts to other medical providers in same zip code equal to or greater than amounts charged by plaintiff medical provider for similar CPT codes are not relevant and or likely to lead to discovery of admissible evidence, as information sought does not tend to prove that provider’s charges were reasonable — Provider’s motion to compel better responses is denied, and insurer’s objections to requests for admissions are sustained
GULF COAST INJURY CENTER, INC., a/a/o REBECCA HARNAGE, Plaintiff, vs. PROGRESSIVE AUTO PRO INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 13th Judicial Circuit in and for Hillsborough County. Case No. 2005-14233, Division H. July 26, 2006. Eric H. Myers, Judge. Counsel: Timothy A. Patrick. Adam R. Filthaut, Adams & Diaco, P.A., Tampa.
ORDER
THIS CAUSE having come upon Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Better Responses to Plaintiff’s Second Request for Admissions To Defendant, and having been heard by the Court on June 26, 2006,
IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. Plaintiff filed suit in this matter to recover unpaid personal injury protection benefits.
2. For the dates of service at issue in this suit, Plaintiff had submitted bills to Progressive for services rendered. Upon receipt of the bills submitted by Plaintiff, Defendant reimbursed Plaintiff an amount that was less than that of which was billed by Plaintiff.
3. Plaintiff sought discovery regarding the amounts that Progressive had previously allowed to medical providers for the 2005 calendar year. More specifically, Plaintiff requested Defendant admit that it had allowed amounts to other medical providers, equal to the amounts charged by Plaintiff or more, for the year 2005. Plaintiff’s requests for admissions read as follows:
“Admit that in the year 2005, the Defendant paid medical providers practicing within zip code number 33606, PIP benefits in the amount of $350.00 (or $280.00, in the event the subject policy paid 80% of its insureds’ medical bills) or more, for the medical service billed under CPT code 99204.”
“Admit that in the year 2005, the Defendant paid medical providers practicing within zip code number 33606, PIP benefits in the amount of $59.00 (or $47.20, in the event the subject policy paid 80% of its insureds’ medical bills) or more, for the medical service billed under CPT code 97039.”
“Admit that in the year 2005, the Defendant paid medical providers practicing within zip code number 33606, PIP benefits in the amount of $46.00 (or $36.80, in the event the subject policy paid 80% of its insureds’ medical bills) or more, for the medical service billed under CPT code 97014.”
“Admit that in the year 2005, the Defendant paid medical providers practicing within zip code number 33606, PIP benefits in the amount of $40.00 (or $32.00, in the event the subject policy paid 80% of its insureds’ medical bills) or more, for the medical service billed under CPT code 97010.”
“Admit that in the year 2005, the Defendant paid medical providers practicing within zip code number 33606, PIP benefits in the amount of $67.00 (or $53.60, in the event the subject policy paid 80% of its insureds’ medical bills) or more, for the medical service billed under CPT code 98940.”
4. Defendant timely objected to Plaintiff’s request and made the following objections:
“Objection, irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to the lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.”
5. The Court finds merit in Defendant’s objections. More specifically, the Court believes that such requests are not relevant nor is the request likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The information requested does not tend to prove that Plaintiff’s charges are reasonable, however, relate merely to payments made to other health care providers in the same geozip for similar CPT codes. Progressive Express Insurance Company v. Francisco M. Gomez, M.D., P.A. (a/a/o Billy Wood), 13 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 558a, 13th Judicial Circuit (Appellate), 2006.
6. Therefore, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Better Responses to Plaintiff’s Second Request for Admissions is DENIED.
7. Defendant’s objections to Plaintiff’s Second Request for Admissions are SUSTAINED.
