19 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 951c
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 1911PADGInsurance — Discovery — Explanation of benefits — Motion for reconsideration of order compelling production of all EOBs generated by insurer for CPT code at issue within geozip three months prior to and three months after date of service is denied — Insurer waived all objections to requested discovery by failing to respond or request extension of time while discovery request was pending — Further, materials sought are reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence regarding reasonableness of charges — Extension of time to provide discovery is granted
MRI ASSOCIATES OF ST. PETE, D/B/A ST. PETE MRI, as assignee of Karan Padgett, Plaintiff, vs. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 13th Judicial Circuit in and for Hillsborough County. Case No. 11-CC-021708, Division M. July 21, 2012. Honorable Herbert Berkowitz, Judge. Counsel: Lorca J. Divale, The Physicians Collections Group, P.A., Tampa; and David M. Caldevilla and Michael R. Bray, de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A., Tampa, for Plaintiff. Ellen H. Ehrenpreis, David S. Dougherty, James E. Peterson, and Rita L. Martin, Law Offices of Ellen H. Ehrenpreis, GEICO Staff Counsel, Tampa, for Defendant.
ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTIONFOR RECONSIDERATION AND MOTIONFOR EXTENSION OF TIME
THIS CAUSE came before the Court on July 3, 2012 concerning the “Motion for Reconsideration” (dated June 18, 2012) and the “Motion for Extension of Time” (dated July 2, 2012) filed by the Defendant, Government Employees Insurance Company. The Court, having considered the motions, the parties’ respective memoranda of law, arguments of counsel and the court file, and being otherwise advised in the premises,
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. On June 8, 2012, this Court entered an order granting the Plaintiff’s motion to compel the Defendant to produce the following documents identified in the Plaintiff’s request for production dated April 9, 2012:
Each and every explanation of benefit (EOB) and/or explanation of reimbursement (EOR) generated by the Defendant for the geozip 337__ for the time period of three (3) months prior to, and three (3) months subsequent to date(s) of service 12/1/09 for the following CPT Code(s) involved in the current litigation, 73721. The Defendant may redact the claimant’s name or any information that would make the claimant identifiable in order to comply with the requirements of HIPPA, as well as hand written notes from the EOB’s, but may not redact the medical provider’s name.
2. On June 18, 2012, the Defendant filed a motion seeking reconsideration of the Court’s Order. Thereafter, on July 2, 2012, the Defendant filed a motion for time extension.
3. The Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration is hereby DENIED. The Order entered on June 8, 2012 was proper. The Defendant’s claim of excusable neglect for not responding timely to the discovery request is unpersuasive. The Defendant did not request a time extension while the Plaintiff’s discovery request was pending. In fact, before moving to compel, Plaintiff’s counsel sent a letter to the defense counsel, offering a time extension, but received no response. Consequently, all of the Defendant’s objections to providing the requested discovery were waived by operation of law. Further, to the extent that the reasonableness of the Plaintiff’s charges for services provided to the Defendant’s insured is at issue, the Court finds that the materials sought are reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, notwithstanding the identity of the proprietor of the discoverable evidence.
4. The Defendant’s Motion for Extension of Time is hereby GRANTED, for purposes of complying with this Order. Within 30 days of the date of this Order, the Defendant shall produce the documents identified in the Plaintiff’s request for production dated April 9, 2012, as identified in paragraph 1 above, subject to the following conditions:
(a) To the extent that such discovery involves privileged information, the Defendant may provide a privilege log in advance of delivering this production, provided that such privilege log identifies the document in question with specificity and further describes in detail the basis of the privilege. Any such privilege log shall be filed with the Court and shall be subject to in camera inspection if deemed necessary by the Court upon further motion by either party.
(b) To the extent that production of such documents generates costs in excess of $1,000, the Defendant is not required to produce said documents until such time as payment for production has been either secured or otherwise arranged with the Plaintiff. However, the Defendant shall provide, at the Plaintiff’s option, a reasonable opportunity to review the records at the Defendant’s attorney’s office prior to duplicating those records and incurring duplication costs.
(c) This Court reserves the authority to consider any actual issues of burdensomeness not otherwise addressed herein. Any affidavits in support of such an argument will be considered at that time.
* * *
