22 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 1175a
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2210SCHMInsurance — Personal injury protection — Discovery — Trade secrets — Although contracts between medical provider and other insurance carriers are trade secrets not subject to discovery, negotiated reimbursement rates contained in contracts are not trade secrets — Provider is ordered to produce matrix of rates that does not identify carriers or patients
RADIOLOGY REGIONAL CENTER, P.A. a/a/o ELAINE SCHMIDT, Plaintiff, vs. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 20th Judicial Circuit in and for Lee County, Small Claims Action. Case No. 13-SC-52942. May 8, 2015. Honorable Josephine M. Gagliardi, Judge. Counsel: Brian S. Goldstein, Ellis, Ged & Bodden, P.A., Boca Raton, for Plaintiff. Danielle Balczon, Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A., Bonita Springs, for Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING IN PART MOTION TO COMPEL
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Defendant’s “Motion To Overrule Objections And Compel Better Discovery Responses,” filed November 6, 2014. Having reviewed the motion, the case file, and the applicable law, and having heard argument by the parties on March 23, 2015, the Court finds as follows:
1. By Palm Beach County Court order filed September 25, 2013, the complaint was transferred from Palm Beach County by agreement of the parties.
2. In the complaint, Plaintiff claimed breach of contract for Defendant’s failure to pay personal injury protection (PIP) coverage payments to Plaintiff as assignee of Ms. Schmidt.
3. In the motion to compel, Defendant argued that it had requested Plaintiff provide copies of its contracts with other providers, and that Plaintiff had objected that the requests were overbroad, vague, harassing, and that the contracts were trade secrets. Defendant contends the contracts are necessary to determine whether the amounts charged by Plaintiff to Defendant are reasonable.
4. Plaintiff argued at the hearing that the contract rates negotiated with other providers is not relevant to determine reasonableness of a PIP claim’s medical bill. Plaintiff contended that Defendant had not entered into contracts with those providers, yet was seeking to use Plaintiff’s rates with other providers to prove reasonableness. Plaintiff argued that the contracts are protected as trade secrets, and the contracts were also confidential and proprietary. Plaintiff agreed it could provide the amounts in a matrix without including any identifying details or methodology. Plaintiff did not explain why it had not simply provided such a matrix in response to Defendant’s discovery requests, thus necessitating the instant hearing.
5. The Court finds that Defendant has established a reasonable necessity for the production of the requested information from the contracts, but not the contracts themselves. A claimant for damages for bodily injury has the burden of proving the reasonableness of their medical expenses. Columbia Hospital v. Hasson, 33 So.3d 148, 150 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) [35 Fla. L. Weekly D551a] (internal citations omitted). The information sought by Defendant is necessary to dispute as unreasonable the amount of expenses Plaintiff seeks to recover, if lower fees are charged to different entities for the same services. Id.
6. The Court finds persuasive decisions from other circuits finding that the contracts at issue are trade secrets. See, e.g. Virtual Imaging Services, Inc. v. Zaldivar, 22 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 742a (Fla. 11th Cir. Ct. 2014). Based on that persuasive authority that similar contracts are trade secrets, the Court finds that an in camera inspection is not necessary to determine whether the contracts here are also trade secrets, and that they are. However, the Court also finds persuasive decisions from other circuits finding that the reimbursement amounts alone are not trade secrets. See, e.g., Id. The Court finds that requiring Plaintiff to provide the amounts would not disclose any methodology or other proprietary means by which the providers calculate the reimbursement amounts. Plaintiff conceded it could create a matrix with the amounts which would not identify the providers or patients.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Defendant’s motion to compel is GRANTED, in part, and Plaintiff’s objections are overruled, in part. As to interrogatory 18, and production requests three, 10, and 15: Plaintiff shall produce a matrix based on the information in the contracts at issue, identifying the type of carrier/provider (i.e. HMO #1, HMO #2, PPO #1, etc.), with the reimbursement amount for the Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes at issue in this case, for the time period at issue. As to production request 18: Plaintiff shall produce all documents evidencing the amount, method of payment, and date received of any patient’s 20% co-payment for the CPT codes at issue, for the time period at issue, in the same manner as above, without revealing any patient information.
Plaintiff shall have 30 days to comply with this order. Failure to comply will result in sanctions.
* * *
