22 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 1060b
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2209SENDInsurance — Personal injury protection — Discovery — Depositions — Reasonableness of charges — Where insurer elected to pay PIP benefits under permissive statutory fee schedule, reasonableness of charges is irrelevant — Motion to compel deposition is denied
STAND-UP MRI OF TALLAHASSEE, P.A., as assignee of Ashley Sendin, Plaintiff, v. UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 2nd Judicial Circuit in and for Leon County. Case No. 2013 SC 000349. December 22, 2014. Honorable Ronald W. Flury, Judge. Counsel: Brett D. Sahm, Bradford Cederberg, P.A., Orlando, for Plaintiff. Andrew L. Chiera, Luks Santaniello, Boca Raton, and James P. Waczewski, Luks Santaniello, Tallahassee, for Defendant.
ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TOCOMPEL DEPOSITION AND PLAINTIFF’SMOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
THIS CAUSE came before the Court on November 6, 2014, after due notice to the parties, on Defendant’s Motion to Compel Deposition and Plaintiffs Motion for Protective Order. Having heard arguments of counsel and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, this Court orders as follows:
Pursuant to the addition of (5)(a)(2) to the PIP statute in 2008, and pursuant to Geico Gen. Ins. Co. v. Virtual Imaging Svcs., Inc. 141 So. 3d 147 (Fla. 2013) [38 Fla. L. Weekly S517a], the reasonableness of a provider’s charge is only at issue in PIP litigation when the insurer utilizes the fact-dependent inquiry into the provider’s charge methodology of (5)(a)(1). In the case at bar, it is undisputed the Defendant utilized the Schedule of Maximum Charges payment methodology of (5)(a)(2). Virtual Imaging clearly holds that an insurer may only elect to utilize one of the two distinct reimbursement methodologies under the PIP Statute.
Pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(b)(1), requested discovery must be relevant to the party’s defense and must be reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant chose not to employ the “reasonableness” method to calculate the benefits paid, and thus, it cannot now attempt to create an issue of fact as to the reasonableness of Plaintiff’s charges.
WHEREFORE, Defendant’s Motion to Compel Deposition is DENIED, and Plaintiff’s Motion for Protective Order is GRANTED.
* * *
