22 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 971a
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2208OBERInsurance — Personal injury protection — Discovery — Depositions — Insurer’s representative — Amounts hospitals within county charged for same procedures at issue in instant case for thirty-day periods prior to and after date of service
PORT CHARLOTTE HMA, LLC., d/b/a PEACE RIVER REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, a Florida Corporation, ala/o CHARLOTTE OBEREMPT, Plaintiff, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 20th Judicial Circuit in and for Charlotte County. Case No. 13-000244-SP. February 3, 2015. Honorable Peter A. Bell, Judge. Counsel: William Moon, Florida Advocates, Dania Beach, for Plaintiff. Stephanie S. Hoffman, Conroy Simberg, Fort Myers, for Defendant.
ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANT’S AMENDEDMOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
THIS CAUSE having come before the Court on December 17, 2014 before Judge Peter Bell, acting judge in the absence of Judge Paul Alessandroni, for hearing upon Defendant’s Amended Motion for Protective Order, dated November 17, 2014, and having considered the arguments of counsel and prior orders of this court, the court makes the following findings of fact:
1. It is presumed, absent a showing to the contrary, that all medical providers providing services under Fla. Stat. 627.736 are acting in good faith and billing a reasonable amount, consistent with Fla. Stat. 627.736(1)(a) (2008) and other relevant Florida Statutes.
2. Defendant, as an automobile insurer within Florida, has access to information showing what other medical providers charge for each procedure, designated by CPT code.
3. The amount that other hospitals charge within Charlotte County for the same procedures or CPT codes that are at issue in the instant case is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The amount that other hospitals charge outside of Charlotte County is not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence where the treatment rendered in this case was emergency treatment following an automobile accident.
4. The specific time period referenced in Plaintiff’s Amended Notice of Taking Videotaped Deposition Duces Tecum of Defendant Pursuant to Rule. 1.310(B)(6) of December 1, 2007 to December 31, 2007 is not relevant in this claim where all services at issue are more than 30 days after December 31, 2007. The relevant time period for considering charges from other hospitals within Charlotte County is thirty (30) days prior to the date of service and thirty (30) days after the date of service.
5. The Defendant’s methodology, basis, fact, and calculations to determine the reasonableness and payment of the charges at issue in the instant case are not relevant in the case.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED, as follows:
1. Defendant shall produce a witness for deposition under Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.310(B)(6) on December 18, 2014 as previously scheduled.
2. The witness shall have knowledge of the claim, policy and coverage details, and amounts other hospitals within Charlotte County charged for the procedures at issue in this case from thirty (30) days prior to the date of service to thirty (30) days after the date of service.
3. At the deposition referenced above, Defendant shall produce relevant portions of its claim file and shall further produce documents showing the amounts other hospitals within Charlotte County charged for the same procedures at issue in this case from thirty (30) days prior to the date of service to thirty (30) days after the date of service. Defendant may, at its option, produce a report of the information rather than random Explanations of Benefits requested by Plaintiff. Defendant is not required to disclose the amounts that were ultimately paid to each hospital.
4. The witness is not required to have knowledge or testify concerning the determination to pay Plaintiff’s claim, the methodology, basis, facts and calculations to determine reasonableness, or the factual and legal basis to each and every defense to payment, consistent with the Court’s findings of fact as noted above.
* * *
