22 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 953a
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2208VENTInsurance — Personal injury protection — Discovery — Depositions — Scope of inquiry regarding reimbursement levels in community and documents to be produced at deposition of insurer’s corporate representative
PHYSICIANS GROUP OF SARASOTA, LLC Aka PHYSICIANS GROUP LLC a/a/o Ricardo Ventura, Plaintiff, vs. STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 12th Judicial Circuit in and for Sarasota County, Civil Division. Case No. 2011-SC-005959 NC. February 9, 2015. Honorable Maryann Boehm, Judge. Counsel: William Moon, Florida Advocates, Dania Beach, for Plaintiff. Katherine V. Shadwick, Reynolds Parrino Spano & Shadwick, P.A., St. Petersburg, for Defendant.
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TODISCOVERY — TO COMPEL DEFENDANT TO PRODUCEA CORPORATE REPRESENTATIVE TO TESTIFYREGARDING REIMBURSEMENT LEVELS IN THECOMMUNITY AND TO PRODUCE REPORTS USINGDECISION POINT SOFTWARE EVIDENCINGTHE CHARGES OF OTHER MEDICAL PROVIDERSIN THE COMMUNITY AND REIMBURSEMENTLEVELS IN THE COMMUNITY
THIS CAUSE having come on for hearing on February 2, 2015 upon the motion of the Plaintiff, PHYSICIANS GROUP, LLC, to compel discovery including the scope of the deposition testimony of the Defendant’s corporate representative pursuant to Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.310(B)(6) and to compel a decision point report evidencing the charges of other medical providers in the community and reimbursement levels in the community and the Court being fully advised in the premises, it is hereby,
ORDERED that the Motion is GRANTED in part, and DENIED in part, as follows:
1. Plaintiff shall be entitled to inquire regarding reimbursement levels in the community, as demonstrated by the amounts which Defendant has paid similarly placed providers in Sarasota, Florida for the same CPT codes that are at issue in this case, for the period of ten (10) days prior to the date of service in this case until ten (10) dates after the first date of service in this case.
2. Plaintiff is not entitled to inquire regarding the reimbursement levels in the community, as demonstrated by the amounts which similarly placed providers in Sarasota, Florida charged or the amounts which Defendant has paid for the same CPT codes at issue in this case during the time of December 1, 2007 through December 31, 2007.
3. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant to produce a Decision Point report or reports detailing the charges of other medical providers in the Community for the CPT codes at issue in this lawsuit is DENIED.
* * *
