21 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 352a
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2104CASTInsurance — Personal injury protection — Discovery — Admissions — Where request for admissions asks insurer to admit or deny that it received certain bills from non-party MRI providers for same CPT code billed by plaintiff medical provider, insurer’s inclusion of amount it ultimately paid on each bill in response is non-responsive to provider’s narrow request and an improper assertion of argument regarding insurer’s right to reduce charges — Improper portion of each response is stricken
OPEN MRI OF MIAMI DADE, LTD., (a/a/o Rosa Castillo), Plaintiff, vs. UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 11th Judicial Circuit in and for Dade County. Case No. 12-14482 SP 23 (02). February 4, 2013. Caryn Canner Schwartz, Judge. Counsel: Kenneth J. Dorchak, Buchalter Hoffman and Dorchak, North Miami, for Plaintiff. Orlando Ortiz, for Defendant.
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TODETERMINE THE SUFFICIENCY OF DEFENDANT’SANSWERS TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONSAND TO COMPEL BETTER ANSWERS
THIS MATTER having come before the Court on January 15, 2013 on the Plaintiff’s Motion to Determine the Sufficiency of the Defendant’s Answers to Request for Admissions and to Compel Better Answers, and after having heard argument of counsel present and having otherwise been fully advised of the premises thereof it is:
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that said Motion is GRANTED.
This matter concerns a claim by the Plaintiff that the Defendant failed to pay Personal Injury Protection benefits when the Defendant improperly reduced it charges based upon 200% of Medicare Part B. Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff’s charges are not reasonable.
The Plaintiff served a request for admissions upon the Defendant. Each such request for admissions requests that the Defendant admit or deny that it received a bill from a named non-party MRI provider for the same CPT code billed by the Plaintiff at issue in this matter in an amount specified in each numbered request for admission.1 Each request for admission provides the Defendant with a claim number reference so that the Defendant may easily verify the amount of the bill received from the respective MRI provider identified in the request for admissions.
In each instance the Defendant admitted to having received such bill in the stated amount from the referenced provider. However, in addition to admitting such fact the Defendant included in its answer an assertion that the referenced bill “was reimbursed at a reasonable amount” and thereafter sets forth the amount reimbursed.
Plaintiff files the instant motion arguing that under Rule 1.370, RCP, that the Defendant’s answer is improper as it is non-responsive as the request in no way requested information regarding the amounts reimbursed. The Defendant has responded to the Plaintiff’s argument by asserting that its statement as to the manner in which it treated the particular bill and the amount it ultimately paid is a proper qualification of the admission.
This Court finds that the Defendant’s response regarding the amount it paid for the bill referenced in each admissions is not a proper qualification of the admission. Each admission is very narrow and specific and concerns only the amounts known to be charged by other MRI providers in the community for the very same CPT codes at issue in this mater. The Defendant’s inclusion of the amount it ultimately paid is non-responsive to such a narrow request and is an improper assertion of its argument regarding its asserted right to reduce charges.
Accordingly, the Court hereby strikes the portion of each of the Defendant’s responses to request for admissions number 1 through 14 beginning with the word “however”.
__________________
1For example the Request for Admission number 1 asks the Defendant to admit or deny that it received a bill from Al Open MRI, Inc., in the amount of $1,850 for a cervical MRI without contrast in year 2008.
* * *
