22 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 949a
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2208HERNInsurance — Personal injury protection — Discovery — Trade secrets — HMO and PPO contracts are confidential, trade secret, proprietary documents that are not discoverable and cannot reasonably lead to discoverable information — Evidence of payments made regarding other patients pursuant to non-automobile related coverages such as HMO, PPO and Medicare agreements are not discoverable and, further, cannot reasonably lead to discoverable information and, thus, are not relevant in a PIP case.
GABLES MRA, a/a/o MARVIN HERNANDEZ, Plaintiff, vs. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign corporation, Defendant. County Court, 11th Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County. Case No. 11-08893 SP 26 (04). October 15, 2014. Lawrence D. King, Judge.
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TOCOMPEL RESPONSES TO CERTIFIED QUESTIONS ANDFOR CONTINUED DEPOSITION OF THE PLAINTIFF
THIS CAUSE having come before the Court upon the Defendant’s Motion for the Continued Deposition of the Plaintiff, Defendant’s Motion to Compel Responses to Certified Questions at Deposition and Plaintiff’s Objections and Motion for Protective Order regarding the Deposition of the Plaintiff on the 8th day of October and the Court having heard argument of Counsel and being fully advised of its premises it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
That Plaintiff’s Objections are Sustained. Plaintiff’s Motion for Protective Order is Granted in Part and the Defendant’s Motion to Compel Responses to Questions certified at deposition is Denied and Defendant’s Motion for Continued deposition of the Plaintiff is Denied for the reasons set forth below:
Defendant noticed the Plaintiff’s Person with Most Knowledge of the Amounts Charged by the Plaintiff for Deposition Duces Tecum directing for said person to bring the following:
ALL DOCUMENTS REFLECTING OR OTHERWISE DOCUMENTING ANY AND ALL MEDICAL TREATMENT RENDERED TO AND RECEIVED BY GABLES MRA . . .and all records to present INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING:
1. Any bills for services rendered by the above physician and/or facility pertaining to the diagnosis, treatment, and care of the above patient;
2. Any statements indicating the total amount of the bill that has been paid and by whom;
3. All records requested should be all inclusive and should in no way be limited to one incident.
4. Information as to pricing and how Plaintiff set its prices for specific CPT codes/procedures performed.
5. Information as to methods of payment and reimbursement amounts accepted by Plaintiff (i.e. private health insurance, workers compensation, Medicare, cash, etc.).
– This person should be able to compare these different methods of payment and reimbursement amounts and determine an approximate percentage of business from each method of payment.
6. Information as to how Plaintiff has determined what would be the appropriate amount it should be reimbursed by the insurer.
7. Information as to any bills for services rendered by the treating physician and/or facility pertaining to the diagnosis, treatment, and care of the patient.
Plaintiff then filed its Motion for Protective Order and Notice of Objection to Duces Tecum and memorandum of Law in Support Thereof. Plaintiff Objected on the grounds that the information and documents sought by Defendant is unduly burdensome, trade secret, privileged and confidential, irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The deposition of the Plaintiff’s Corporate Representative Robert Diaz went forward on June 5, 2013. Plaintiff renewed these Objections during the deposition.
Having reviewed the transcript of the Deposition of Mr. Diaz, the Motions filed by the parties and heard argument of Counsel the Court finds that Plaintiff is not required to answer the questions certified at deposition or produce HMO and PPO agreements, Medicare, HMO and PPO billing or collection documents as they contain trade secrets protected by §90.506 Fla. Stat. See Laser Spine Institute, LLC v. Greer, 144 So. 3d 633 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) [39 Fla. L. Weekly D1671a] and Holmes Regional Med. Center v. ACHA, 731 So.2d 51 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999) [24 Fla. L. Weekly D810a].
The Court finds that HMO and PPO contracts are confidential, trade secret, proprietary documents that are not discoverable and, further, cannot reasonably lead to discoverable information and, thus, are not relevant. The Court finds further that evidence of payments made regarding other patients pursuant to non-automobile related coverages such as HMO, PPO and Medicare agreements are not discoverable and, further, cannot reasonably lead to discoverable information and, thus, are not relevant in a PIP case. See Hillsborough County Hospital v. Fernandez, 66 So.2d 1071 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1995); Hialeah Med. Assoc, Inc. (a/a/o Ana Lexcano) v. United Auto. Ins. Co., Case No. 12-229 AP (Fla. 11th Jud. Cir. March 7, 2014) [21 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 487b], rhng. den.,; Atkins v. Allstate Ins. Co., 382 So.2d 1276 (Fla. 1980).
* * *
