22 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 606a
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2205REEDInsurance — Personal injury protection — Discovery — Depositions — Medical provider is entitled to depose insurer’s corporate representative regarding insurer’s contention that provider’s charges are not reasonable and how insurer calculated reimbursement rate — Provider is not required to depose litigation adjuster and PIP adjuster before deposing corporate representative
JEREMY GORDON, D.C. a/a/o Christine M. Reedy, Plaintiff, vs. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 7th Judicial Circuit in and for Volusia County. Case No. 2012-23738 CONS, Division 78. July 2, 2013. Honorable Shirley A. Green, Judge. Counsel: Kimberly Simoes, Simoes Law Group, P.A., Deland, for Plaintiff. Michael Hammond, Gobel Flakes, Orlando, for Defendant.
ORDER
THIS CAUSE having come before the Court for hearing on July 1, 2013, on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel and Plaintiff’s Ore Tenus Motion to Set Deposition Schedule and the Court having reviewed the motion and the court file, and being otherwise duly advised, it is hereby
CONSIDERED, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. Plaintiff propounded discovery to the Defendant seeking information regarding Defendant’s contention that the Plaintiff’s charge for the service at issue was not reasonable. Additionally, Plaintiff sought the deposition of Defendant’s corporate representative regarding Defendant’s contention that the Plaintiff’s charge for the service at issue was unreasonable.
2. Defendant contends that its payment was reasonable for the services at issue and, therefore, whether the Plaintiff’s bill was reasonable in price is not relevant and discovery should not be allowed on this issue. Thus, Defendant contends that the discovery propounded and the request for a corporate representative’s deposition should be denied.
3. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Defendant suggests that if the Court allows a deposition, the Plaintiff should be required to take the deposition of the litigation adjuster and the PIP adjuster prior to requesting a corporate representative. State Farm suggests that the information the Plaintiff seeks may be within the personal knowledge of the litigation adjuster or the PIP adjuster that handled the claim.
4. The Court finds that the Defendant must designate and produce a corporate representative regarding State Farm’s contention that the Plaintiff’s charges are not reasonable in price and how State Farm calculated the reimbursement rate in this matter.
5. The deposition of State Farm’scorporate representative and the deposition of the Plaintiff shall take place no later than September 1, 2013. Notwithstanding this deadline, the Court urges counsel for the parties to complete the depositions as soon as practical so that the Court may address any additional disputes or appropriate motions in advanceof trial.
* * *
