22 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 607a
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2205CREEInsurance — Personal injury protection — Discovery — Depositions — Scope of inquiry regarding reasonableness of medical provider’s charge in deposition of insurer’s 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 25, 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 DENYING STATE FARM’S EMERGENCYMOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDINGDEPOSITION OF CORPORATE REPRESENTATIVE
THIS CAUSE having come before the Court for hearing on July 12, 2013, on Defendant’s Emergency Motion for Protective Order 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. On July 1, 2013, this Court heard argument on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery. During that hearing the Court ordered State Farm to produce a corporate representative to respond to Plaintiff’s inquiry regarding State Farm’s contentions that the Plaintiff had billed an unreasonable amount for the services at issue in the current matter.
2. At that hearing the Defendant strenuously argued that the relevant inquiry was not whether the Plaintiff’s charge was reasonable and what State Farm’s opinion was in that regard, but whether State Farm paid a reasonable amount for the services at issue. Thus, Defendant contended that the request for a corporate representative’s deposition should be denied.
3. At that hearing this Court granted the Plaintiff’s motion to take the deposition of State Farm’s corporate representative and ordered the Defendant to 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. The Court further ordered the deposition to take place before September 1, 2013.
4. The Plaintiff noticed the deposition of State Farm’s corporate representative for July 29, 2013, and designated the following areas of inquiry in the notice:
1. Corporate representative with most knowledge of claim of the above identified patient.
2. Corporate representative with most knowledge ofState Farm’s methodology to determine whether Plaintiffs’ charges were a reasonable amount.
3. Corporate representative with most knowledge of bills at issue herein.
4. Corporate representative with most knowledge of the information considered by State Farm in determining whether the Plaintiff’s bills for services were reasonable in price.
5. Corporate representative with the most knowledge of the relationship between State Farm and Mitchell International, Inc. in the adjusting of medical bills for State Farm policyholders.
6. Corporate representative with the most knowledge of the report produced by State Farm in the matter of Altamonte Springs Diagnostic Imaging, Inc. as assignee of Roger Smith vs. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., Middle District of Florida, State Case No.: 09-CC-128200, in the following areas: (1) the contents of the report attached to the Affidavit of Dan Merrigan, dated September 25, 2009; (2) the process utilized by State Farm to compile the information contained inthe report; (3) the person at Mitchell International, Inc. that State Farm communicated with to obtain the report; (4)the cost from Mitchell International, Inc. to State Farm to obtain the report; (5) the authenticity of the data contained in the report; (5) the identification of the individuals at State Farm and Mitchell International, Inc. that participated in the process of creating or obtaining the report; (6) any changes by State Farm in the methods ofdetermining reimbursement forMRI services from July 2008 through the present date.
7. Corporate representative with State Farm regarding State Farm’s position that the charges for the services at issue in this matter are not reasonable in price.
8. Corporate representative with State Farm reading the maximum charge that would be reasonable as determine by State Farm forthe services at issue in this case.
9. Corporate representative with State Farm with most knowledge regarding the “auto-pay” process utilized by State Farm for the payment of medical bills.
5. In response to the Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum of State Farm’s Corporate Representative, State Farm filed an Emergency Motion for Protective Order. In this Motion State Farm, once again, urged the Court to limit the scope of the Plaintiff’s deposition of the corporate representative of State Farm and contended that the designations identified as Nos. 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 arenot relevant to any issues before the Court and that the areas of inquiry include confidential and trade secret information.
6. Plaintiff responded to State Farm’s Emergency Motion for Protective Order. In the response, Plaintiff outlined the issue in this case as being whether the Plaintiff’s charge was reasonable — not whether State Farm’s payment was reasonable. Additionally, Plaintiff established that the Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum served on State Farm in this case is identical to the Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum that was served on State Farm in the case of New Smyrna Imaging AAO Medina v. State Farm, Case No.: 2012-21729 CONS. In the New Smyrna Imaging case State Farm did not object to the designations, produced Daniel Merrigan as State Farm’s corporate representative and Mr. Merrigan testified as to each subject matter on behalf of State Farm. A copy of Mr. Merrigan’s deposition was filed by the Plaintiff in this matter.
7. The issue in this case is whether the Plaintiff’s charge of $34.00 for CPT code 97012 was reasonable in amount. State Farm has denied that this charge is reasonable and, therefore, must provide discovery regarding this contention. State Farm is not permitted to deny the reasonableness of Plaintiffs’ charges and then insulate itself from any inquiry regarding this position.
8. The designations contained within the Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum are appropriate in scope and relevant areas of inquiry on the issues in this case. Furthermore, the exact same areas of inquiry and designations were addressed (without objection) in the New Smyrna Imaging AAO Medina v. State Farm case.
9. Based on the foregoing, this Court sees no reason to limit or narrow the designations identified by the Plaintiff in this case and DENIES the Defendant’s Emergency Motion for Protective Order. The deposition of State Farm’s Corporate Representative shall go forward as scheduled and State Farmshall designate an individual to respond to each area of inquiry designated in Plaintiff’s Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum.
