22 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 399a
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2203FLOYInsurance — Personal injury protection — Discovery — Other insurers from which plaintiff has accepted PIP benefits for same and/or similar treatment and amounts accepted from insurers for this treatment — Scope of discovery
D. BADOLATO, P.A. d/b/a PREMIER URGENT CARE, as assignee of GWENDOLYN FLOYD, Plaintiff, vs. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 18th Judicial Circuit in and for Brevard County. Case No. 05-2013-SC-026816-XXXX-XX. February 25, 2014. Honorable A.B. Majeed, Judge. Counsel: Mishaal K. Patel, Florida Advocates, Dania Beach, for Plaintiff.
ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TOCOMPEL BETTER RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’SFIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES ANDDEFENDANT’S FIRST REQUEST TO PRODUCE
THIS MATTER came to be heard on February 3, 2014 upon Defendant State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company’s Motion to Compel Better Responses to Defendant’s First Set of Interrogatories and Defendant’s First Request to Produce. Upon due consideration, and for good cause shown, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Defendant’s Motion be, and hereby is, GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, as follows:
1. Within 30 days of the date of this Order, the Plaintiff shall provide to the Defendant the names of three automobile insurers from which the Plaintiff has accepted personal injury protection insurance benefits for the same and/or similar treatment as for the alleged assignor/patient in this case, together with the amount(s) of PIP benefits accepted from each such insurer for said treatment;
2. The period of time for which the information designated in paragraph one shall be provided to the Defendant is three months before through three months after the date(s) of service at issue in this litigation; and
3. The Plaintiff is not required to provide the Defendant with the information outlined in paragraph one from any other payment sources/entities (aside from automobile insurers from which the Plaintiff has accepted PIP benefits for same and/or similar treatment), including, but not limited to payment by or through HMOs, PPOs, self-pay patients, patients involved in litigation, and/or Worker’s Compensation as this type of information is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence on the issue of reasonableness of charges at issue in this case. The Plaintiff is not required to provide the Defendant with information as to whether the Plaintiff has ever received payment from any such other sources/entities for the same and/or similar treatment allegedly rendered by the Plaintiff to the alleged assignor/patient in this case. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s objections to Defendant’s First Set of Interrogatories #2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 11, 12, and 15, and the Plaintiff’s objections to Defendant’s First Request for Production #1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20 are SUSTAINED.
All until further Order of Court.
* * *
