22 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 154b
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2201LOAIInsurance — Personal injury protection — Coverage — Medical expenses — Evidence — Where insurer has failed to comply with court order compelling it to produce documents identifying cases in which insurer asserts that providers have accepted 200% of Medicare fee schedule or less, and offers made by insurer in different cases with different facts would not be relevant to instant case, insurer is precluded from mentioning settlements made in other cases
QUANTUM IMAGING HOLDINGS LLC, a/a/o JORGE LOAISIGA, Plaintiff, vs. UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County. Case No. 12-07479 COCE 50. June 17, 2014. Honorable Peter B. Skolnik, Judge. Counsel: Emilio Roland Stillo, for Plaintiff. Norma Guadalupe Kassner, Eric Belsky, and Justin Cincola, for Defendant.
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION INLIMINE TO PRECLUDE ANY MENTIONOF PURPORTED SETTLEMENTS MADEBY DEFENDANT IN OTHER CLAIMS
THIS CAUSE having come on for consideration on Plaintiff’s, QUANTUM IMAGING HOLDINGS LLC, a/a/o JORGE LOAISIGA, Motion in Limine to Preclude Any Mention of purported settlements in other claims, it is hereby,
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that said Motion be, and the same is hereby GRANTED as follows:
1. The Defendant is not permitted to reference contested payments, settlements, cases in litigation and any claims that are contested. Quantum Imaging Holdings LLC (a/a/o Charles Williams) v. United Auto. Ins. Co., Case No.: 11-024150 COCE (53) (Fla. unpublished Order. Broward County, Cnty. Ct., Dec. 3, 2013) (Lee, J.) [21 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 440b].
2. In opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, the Defendant filed the affidavit of its corporate representative, Ismail Sarabi, alleging that the Plaintiff has accepted as full reimbursement, in at least 42 claims, amounts at or below 200% of Medicare. In addition, the Defendant’s affiant has identified other providers who have purportedly “accepted” 200% of Medicare or less in other unidentified claims. In an effort to determine if these purported claims were the result of a settlement, so the Plaintiff could determine the circumstances surrounding each claim, the Plaintiff propounded a discovery request on Defendant on November 18, 2013. The Defendant did not respond to this request in violation of the Fla. R. Civ. P. On February 28, 2014, the Court entered an Order compelling Defendant to respond to said discovery within ten days. The Defendant provided no response violating the February 28, 2014 Order. On March 18, 2014, Plaintiff filed its Motion to Enforce the February 28, 2014 Court Order. Subsequently, the Defendant filed their belated response, objecting on the basis of: attorney client privilege, work product, premature bad faith discovery, overbroad, not properly limited in time and scope, and irrelevant.
3. In violation of the Fla. R. Civ. P. and this Court’s Order of February 28, 2014 requiring the Defendant to produce various documentation as it relates to the identity of these cases, the Defendant is not permitted to use these claims as a sword and then shield themselves, by privilege and other objections, from identifying the claimants or allow Plaintiff to examine the underlying facts, such as whether the Defendant alleged the patient failed to appear at a compulsory medical examination or other case specific factual basis which might cause the Plaintiff or the other providers referenced to settle a claim. See Northup v. Acken, 865 So.2d 1267 (Fla. 2004) [29 Fla. L. Weekly S37a]; Dobson v. Persell, 390 So.2d 704 (Fla. 1980); Surf Drugs, Inc. v. Vermette, 236 So.2d 108 (Fla. 1970).
4. Moreover, offers in other cases would not be relevant in the instant case as they would only ultimately show that the Defendant made an offer on a different case with different facts such as a failure to attend a compulsory medical examination or sworn statement. Those are not the facts in the instant case where the Defendant has stipulated that reasonableness is the sole issue and that the services were related and medically necessary. Further, any marginal probative value would be outweighed by the danger of confusion and prejudice in eliciting the facts of at least 42 other claims before the jury if the Defendant had ultimately disclosed their identity.
