22 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 608a
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2205KINGInsurance — Personal injury protection — Discovery — Depositions — Scope of inquiry regarding reasonableness of charges at deposition of insurer’s corporate representative
JOHN ORTOLANI M.D. a/a/o TRACY KING, Plaintiff, vs. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 7th Judicial Circuit in and for Volusia County. Case No. 2013-30697-COCI, Division 84. August 8, 2013. Dawn P. Fields, Judge. Counsel: Kimberly Simoes, The Simoes Law Group, P.A., Deland, for Plaintiff. Timothy Kazee, Vernis & Bowling, Deland, for Defendant.
ORDER DENYING STATE FARM’S MOTION FORPROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDINGDEPOSITION OF CORPORATE REPRESENTATIVE
THIS CAUSE having come before the Court for hearing on July 24, 2013, on Defendant’s 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. The Plaintiff noticed the deposition of State Farm’s corporate representative for July 11, 2013, and designated, as items 1-10 in the Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum, the following areas of inquiry:
1. Corporate representative with most knowledge of claim of the above identified patient.
2. Corporate representative with most knowledge of State 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 in the report; (3) the person at Mitchell International, Inc. that State Fenn 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 of determining reimbursement for MRI 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 for the servicesat 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.
10. Corporate representative with State Farm regarding the “reason code” C1068 and X3566 applied to the services rendered to Tracy King for date of service 2/15/2011.
2. In response to the Plaintiff’s notice, the Defendant filed a Motion for Protective Order regarding the unavailability of counsel on the selected deposition date of July 31, 2013.
3. On July 24, 2013, this Court heard argument on Defendant’s Motion for Protective Order. At the hearing, Plaintiff’s counsel agreed to reschedule the deposition to a mutually convenient time.
4. In response, State Farm advised that the claims adjuster was available for deposition on September 4, 2013, and would be responding to items 1, 3 and 10 of the designations. State Farm substantively challenged the Plaintiff’s right to take the deposition of State Farm’s corporate representative on the remaining designated topics arguing that the Court should to limit the scope of the Plaintiff’s deposition of the corporate representative of State Farm. State Farm contended that the designations identified as Nos. 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 are not relevant to any issues before the Court and that the areas of inquiry shifted the burden of proof to the Defendant to prove that the Plaintiff’s charges were unreasonable.
6. In response, Plaintiff agreed that an issue for presentation to the jury would be whether the Plaintiff’s charge was reasonable. However, since the Defendant has denied that the Plaintiff’s charge was reasonable, Plaintiff is entitled to conduct discovery of State Farm regarding its position. Additionally, Plaintiff advised the Court 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 forty-eight (48) additional cases pending before judges Green and Sanders in Volusia County and those depositions had proceeded without objection by State Farm.
7. The primary issue in this case is whether the Plaintiff’s charge was reasonable in amount.1 State Farm has denied that the charges are reasonable and, therefore, must provide discovery regarding this contention.
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.
9. Based on the foregoing, this Court sees no reason to limit or narrow the designations identified by the Plaintiff in this case and, without prejudice, the Defendant’s Motion for Protective Order as to the scope of the deposition. After the September 4, 2013, deposition is completed, the parties may return to the Court seeking to add, limit, or clarify areas of inquiry and/or seeking further limitations on scope.
10. As agreed by State Farm, a corporaterepresentative shall be produced for deposition on September 4, 2013, to respond to numbers 1, 3 and 10 of the Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum. The deposition of Stare Farm’s Corporate Representative to respond to the remaining areas of inquiry shall be coordinated no later than September 10, 2013, to occur no later than October 10, 2013.
__________________
1The Court recognizes that State Farm’s utilization of “a reduction of 20% of the practice expense component” to the bills at issue which is also the subject of dispute between the parties.
