21 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 583b
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2106MARRInsurance — Personal injury protection — Discovery — Interrogadtories — Medical provider must disclose whether it has contracts with private health insurers — Provider is not required to disclose amounts paid, average amounts paid, or range of reimbursement amounts paid for CPT codes at issue by private insurers — Provider must disclose average reimbursement amount received for CPT codes at issue from other PIP insurers
ACK-TEN GROUP, LLC D/B/A SEACREST OPEN MRI OF WELLINGTON, a Florida Corporation (assignee of Marrero, Adrian), Plaintiff, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County. Case No. 50 2012 SC 008080 XXXXMB. August 27, 2013. Nancy Perez, Judge. Counsel: Robert Goldman, Florida Advocates, Dania Beach, for Plaintiff.
ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPELBETTER RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES
THIS MATTER came before the Court on July 24, 2013 upon the Defendant’s motion to compel better responses to interrogatory nos. 6, 15, 16 and 17 of Defendant’s Interrogatories to Plaintiff, and the court having considered the motion and having heard argument of counsel, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is hereby
ORDERED that Defendant’s motion to compel better responses is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, as follows:
1. The Court grants the motion as to interrogatory no. 6, to the extent that Plaintiff shall answer whether it has contracts with any private health insurers. Plaintiff shall identify the private insurers with which it had contractual relationships during the year 2009. Plaintiff shall state the percentage of its patients that are private insurance patients. The Court denies the motion as to interrogatory no. 6, to the extent that the Plaintiff shall not be required to state the amounts paid by each insurance company for the CPT codes at issue in this case.
2. The Court denies the motion as to interrogatory no. 15. Plaintiff shall not be required to provide the range of reimbursement amounts to Plaintiff for the CPT codes at issue in this case, as requested in that interrogatory.
3. The Court denies the motion as to interrogatory no. 16. Plaintiff shall not be required to provide the average reimbursement amount Plaintiff received for the CPT codes at issue in this case from private insurers, as requested in that interrogatory.
4. The Court grants the motion as to interrogatory no. 17. Plaintiff shall be required to provide the average reimbursement amount Plaintiff received for the CPT codes at issue in this case from PIP insurers other than the Defendant for the year 2009, as requested in that interrogatory.
Plaintiff shall have 15 days from the date of this Order within which to provide the better answers to interrogatory nos. 6 and 17.
* * *
