20 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 5a
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2001GARCNOT FINAL VERSION OF OPINION
Subsequent Changes at 20 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 237aInsurance — Discovery — Subpoenas duces tecum filed by medical provider against vendor companies that hire physicians on behalf of insurance companies to perform medical record reports and independent medical examinations on claimants, seeking records of payments to physician used by insurer were too broad where subpoenas did not limit information sought to payments for reports or IMEs conducted for insurer
UNITED AUTOMOBILE INS. CO., Petitioner, vs. SANTA FE MEDICAL CENTER, a/a/o ALCIDES GARCIA, Respondent. Circuit Court, 11th Judicial Circuit (Appellate) in and for Miami-Dade County. Case No. 10-170 AP. L.C. Case No. 09-4367 CC 26. October 3, 2012. A Petition for Writ of Certiorari from County Court for Miami-Dade County. Counsel: Lara J. Edelstein, for Petitioner. Christian Carrazana, for Respondent.
(Before FIRTEL, MANNO SCHURR, and HERSCH, JJ.)
WITHDRAWN. Substituted opinion at FLWSUPP 2003AGAR; 20 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 237a
(HERSCH, Judge.) United Automobile Insurance Company (United Auto), by petition for writ of certiorari, seeks to overturn an order of the trial court denying its motion to quash a number of subpoenas duces tecum filed by Santa Fe Medical Center (Santa Fe) against non-party vendor companies. These vendor companies, on behalf of insurance companies or others, hire physicians to perform medical record reviews or physical examinations on insurance claimants. The subpoenas at issue seek copies of “all payment records” issued by each vendor company to Dr. Peter J. Millheiser, M.D., or Coral Reef Orthopedics, for independent medical examinations (IMEs) performed by Dr. Millheiser or IME reports prepared by him.
Information on the amounts paid to an expert by a party is clearly discoverable. Allstate Insurance Company v. Boecher, 733 So.2d 993 (Fla. 1999) [24 Fla. L. Weekly S187a]. The right to this information is not affected by the fact that the examinations are arranged and compensated by way of a third party vendor. Southern Diagnostic Associates v. Bencosme, 833 So.2d 801 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) [27 Fla. L. Weekly D2344d]. However, the instant subpoenas do not limit the information sought to payments made for IME’s and reports conducted or prepared on behalf of United Auto, the insurer involved in the instant case. As such, they are too broad. Accordingly, we grant certiorari, quash the order under review and remand for the trial court to narrowly tailor an order that is directed to the relationship between Dr. Millheiser and United Auto. See Bencosme, supra. (FIRTEL and MANNO SCHURR, JJ. concur.)
* * *
