20 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 1240a
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2012BURGInsurance — Personal injury protection — Discovery — On in camera inspection of medical provider’s preferred provider agreements, trial court overrules provider’s objections to discovery of PPO agreements that contain confidential and proprietary information but are also relevant to insurer’s position as to amount provider should be reimbursed for CPT codes at issue — Agreements are to be produced subject to confidentiality agreement or other procedure designed to protect confidentiality — Objection to agreement that does not contain confidential or proprietary information and may lead to discovery of admissible evidence is overruled — Objections to documents that are not relevant or likely to lead to admissible evidence are sustained
HOLLYWOOD CHIROPRACTIC & ACUPUNCTURE (a/a/o Jacqueline Burgos), Plaintiff, vs. UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County. Case No. 12-22006 COCE (53). August 20, 2013. Robert W. Lee, Judge. Counsel: Todd Landau, Hallandale Beach, for Plaintiff. Adam Shapiro, Office of the General Counsel, Trial Division of United Automobile Insurance Company, Miami Gardens, for Defendant.
ORDER ON IN CAMERA INSPECTION
THIS CAUSE came before the Court for in camera inspection of documents as set forth in this Court’s Order of August 12, 2013, and the Court’s having reviewed the documents, the entire Court file, and the relevant legal authorities, and the Court’s being sufficiently advised in the premises, the Court finds as follows:
The Plaintiff has filed its Objections to Defendant’s Request for Production and Interrogatories. The Objections were set for hearing for August 5, 2013. At or after the hearing, the Court disposed of all matters except for the request to produce copies of all PPO agreements in effect (request to produce 4), as well as documents relating to the reimbursement rates of other insurers for Plaintiff’s services (request to produce 13). Additionally, in interrogatory 5, the defendant is seeking information relating to the amounts reimbursed by other insurers for the same CPT codes at issue in this case. The Court ordered that these documents complying with these requests — specifically, those documents involving PPO agreements — be delivered directly to chambers for an in camera inspection. The Defendant complied on August 19, 2013.
As for these items, for purposes of the in camera inspection, the Court focuses on the Plaintiff’s claim that items responsive to this request are protected as being confidential or irrelevant. The Court received the items provided by the Plaintiff which consisted of 27 pages: 1 page pertaining to AvMed (Chiro Alliance Corporation); 14 pages pertaining to Blue Cross (Availity); and 12 pages pertaining to Healthways. The Court’s disposition is as follows:
As for the single AvMed page, the Court agrees with the Plaintiff that these documents are protected as containing confidential and/or proprietary information. However, the documents are clearly relevant to Defendant’s position as to the amount the Plaintiff should have been reimbursed for the invoices in the instant case; therefore the objection is OVERRULED. However, the Defendant is entitled to review these documents, subject to a confidentiality agreement or other procedure designed to protect the confidentiality of these documents. See Rocket Group, LLC v. Jatib, 38 Fla. L. Weekly D1181a, D1182 (Fla. 4th DCA May 29, 2013); Laser Spine Institute, LLC v. Makanast, 69 So.3d 1045, 1046 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) [36 Fla. L. Weekly D2077b].
As for the 14 pages pertaining to Blue Cross:
the 1-page email and 1-page fax cover sheet are not relevant to any issue in the case, nor are they likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, so the objection as to these two-pages is SUSTAINED;
the 2-page Eligibility & Benefits Enhancements document dated July 2009, the Court agrees with the Plaintiff that these documents are protected as containing confidential and/or proprietary information. However, the documents are clearly relevant to Defendant’s position as to the amount the Plaintiff should have been reimbursed for the invoices in the instant case; therefore the objection is OVERRULED. However, the Defendant is entitled to review these documents, subject to a confidentiality agreement or other procedure designed to protect the confidentiality of these documents;
the 10 pages of Application to Access Availity’s Secured Website are not relevant to any issue in the case, nor are they likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; therefore the objection as to these 10 pages is SUSTAINED.
As to the Healthways documents:
the Court finds that the eight-page Practitioner Initial Application is not protected as confidential. Additionally, the Court cannot say that the information in the document will not lead to the discovery of admissible evidence relevant to issues in the case. As a result, the Plaintiff’s objection is OVERRULED. However, the Plaintiff may redact the social security number;
the single-page Request for Taxpayer Identification Number, the Court agrees with the Plaintiff that this document is protected as containing confidential and/or proprietary information. However, the Court cannot say that the information in the document will not lead to the discovery of admissible evidence relevant to issues in the case; therefore the objection is OVERRULED. However, the Defendant is entitled to review this document, subject to a confidentiality agreement or other procedure designed to protect the confidentiality of these documents;
the 3-page Participating Practitioner Agreement, the Court agrees with the Plaintiff that these documents are protected as containing confidential and/or proprietary information. However, the documents are clearly relevant to Defendant’s position as to the amount the Plaintiff should have been reimbursed for the invoices in the instant case; therefore the objection is OVERRULED. However, the Defendant is entitled to review these documents, subject to a confidentiality agreement or other procedure designed to protect the confidentiality of these documents.
Therefore, production of these documents is STAYED pending compliance with this Order. Within two weeks of the date of this Order, the parties shall attempt in good faith to negotiate a protective order, confidentiality agreement or other procedure to protect the confidentiality of these documents consisting of seven (7) pages. If the parties are unable to do so, notwithstanding a good faith effort, either party may advise the Court in writing of such failure, and the Court will devise an appropriate procedure. Morever, the Court intends to release the 8 non-privileged pages to the Plaintiff within the next fifteen (15) days. The remaining pages shall remain under seal.
* * *
