22 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 940a
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2208VOIGInsurance — Personal injury protection — Discovery — Where insurer has elected to reimburse claim pursuant to statutory fee schedule, any discovery regarding reasonableness of charges is irrelevant
STAND-UP MRI & DIAGNOSTIC CENTER, P.A., as assignee of Linda Voigt, Plaintiff, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 7th Judicial Circuit in and for Volusia County. Case No. 2014 31494 COCI. February 10, 2015. Angela A. Dempsey, Judge. Counsel: Steven Dell, Bradford Cederberg, P.A., Orlando, for Plaintiff. David M. Gagnon, Taylor, Day, Grimm & Boyd, Jacksonville, for Defendant.ORDER
THIS MATTER having come before this Honorable Court on Defendant’s Motion for Protective Order, Defendant’s Motion to Compel Better Responses to Defendant’s Discovery and Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Deposition and this Honorable Court having heard arguments of counsel and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is hereby,
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:
1. Based upon arguments of counsel and the binding legal precedent set forth by the Florida Supreme Court in Geico Gen. Ins. Co. v. Virtual Imaging Services, Inc., 141 So. 3d 147 (Fla. 2013) [38 Fla. L. Weekly S517a] this Court finds reasonableness of the charge surrounding this issue is not a fact dependent inquiry upon which discovery should occur.
2. According to the legislative intent, the addition of (5)(a)2., also known as the schedule of maximum charges, to the PIP statute in 2008, was to reduce costs and eliminate litigation regarding was is a “reasonable” charge. Bill Analysis and Fiscal Impact Statement, CS/SB40-C page 18, Florida Senate, October 4, 2007. When read in conjunction with the Florida Supreme Court opinion in Geico, supra it is clear that reasonableness of a provider’s charge is only at issue in PIP litigation when the insurer utilizes the fact-dependant inquiry during the processing of the provider’s charge. Defendant in this case chose to limit reimbursement to 200% of the Participating Medicare Fee Schedule i.e. utilized 627.736(5)(a)2.f. There was no argument or suggestion that any consideration was given by the Defendant to any of the fact dependent factors set forth by the Florida Supreme Court. Based on the distinct, alternative, mutually exclusive payment methodologies which satisfy the reasonable expense mandate under Fla. Stat. 627.736(1)(a) any discovery regarding reasonableness fact dependent factors is irrelevant. Therefore, Defendant’s Motion to Compel Better Responses to Defendant’s Discovery is hereby DENIED.
3. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Deposition is hereby GRANTED for the limited purpose of authentication of documents, addressing alleged affirmative defenses and discussion regarding the handling of this particular claim file. The Defendant must produce a corporate representative for said deposition but may designate whomever it chooses according to Fla. R. Civ. Pro. 1.310(b)(6).
4. Defendant’s Motion for Protective Order is hereby DENIED.
* * *
