22 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 884a
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2208PORTInsurance — Personal injury protection — Discovery — Interrogatories — Trade secrets — Although trial court order requiring medical provider to reveal payment amounts it received from insurance companies and uninsured patients for CPT codes at issue allowed provider to maintain anonymity of insurance companies, court erred in failing to include clear legal conclusion that amounts and identities of payors constituted trade secrets
VIRTUAL IMAGING SERVICES, INC., a/a/o Marlene Portalatin, Petitioner-Plaintiff, v. UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent-Defendant. Circuit Court, 11th Judicial Circuit (Appellate) in and for Miami-Dade County. Case No. 14-165 AP. L.T. Case No. 12-5226 SP 23 (05). March 11, 2015. On common-law certiorari review from a non-final order rendered by the Miami-Dade-County Court. Hon. Charles Johnson, Judge. Counsel: Joseph Littman, The Greenspan Law Firm, P.A., for Petitioner-Plaintiff. Karen Trefzger, United Automobile Insurance Company’s Office of the General Counsel, for Respondent-Defendant.
(Before GLAZER, SAYFIE, and MIRANDA, JJ.)
(MIRANDA, Judge.) Virtual Imaging Services, Inc. (“Virtual”) requests certiorari relief from a non-final order overruling its objection to United Automobile Insurance Company’s (“United”) fourth (4th) interrogatory, wherein United requested that Virtual identify, for the three preceding years, when medical services were rendered for CPT codes 72125 and 72132, and list the amount the insured was reimbursed from each insurance provider. In the order under review, the trial court determined,
Plaintiff’s stated objections of overbroad, burdensome, harassing and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence an trade secret are OVERRULED. Pursuant to F.S. 627.736(5)(a)(1), payments accepted by Plaintiff are relevant to the determination of reasonableness at issue in this case. However, Plaintiff shall provide the reimbursement amounts for CPT Codes 722125 and 72131 for only the year of service, Year 2010, for each insurance provider/carrier listed in 13 and the uninsured and to avoid the potential for disclosure of any trade secret or propriety information, Plaintiff may simply identify said insurance provider by number and type of carrier, i.e., HMO# 1 [reimbursement amount]; HMO #2 ___; PPO #1___, PPO#2___, etc.
(Emphasis added).
According to Virtual, the requested information is private, confidential business and trade secret information. Virtual asserts the lower court departed from the essential requirements of the law by failing conduct an in camera inspection, or to engage in a balancing of the interests analysis before ordering it to disclose the confidential information. As a result, Virtual contends that disclosure of this type of would cause irreparable injury for which there is no remedy on appeal.
In opposition, the insurer argues: (1) Virtual did not meet its burden of proving that reimbursement amounts from other insurers are “trade secrets”; (2) Virtual failed to prove that it has a propriety interest in the reimbursement amounts; (3) an in camera inspection was not required because the court treated the information as if it were a trade secret; (4) the court properly determined that the reimbursement information sought by United was subject to discovery because it was relevant to the issue of reasonableness; (5) the trial court implemented adequate safeguards to protect any proprietary interests; (6) the privilege was waived because the insurers already disclosed the reimbursement amounts to third-parties; and (7) the sword and shield doctrine prevents Virtual from initiating litigation based on the reasonableness of its prices while simultaneously claiming the amounts it accepted as payment from other insurers is privileged.
A petitioner may obtain common-law certiorari relief when a non-final order departs from the law’s essential requirements, causes “material injury through subsequent proceedings”, and no “adequate remedy after final judgment” can alleviate the “irreparable injury” inflicted by the non-final order. Sheridan Healthcorp, Inc. v. Total Health Choice, Inc., 770 So. 2d 221, 222 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) [25 Fla. L. Weekly D2503b].
When a litigant asserts the trade secret privilege “as the basis for resisting production, a trial court must determine whether the requested production constitutes a trade secret.” Sheridan Healthcorp, 770 So. 2d at 222. If the requested information constitutes a trade secret, “the court must require the party seeking production to show reasonable necessity for the requested materials.” Id. If the court orders production, it “must set forth its findings.” Id.
Here, the insurer’s fourth (4th) interrogatory requests that Virtual reveal the payment amount it received from insurance companies and uninsured patients. The county court overruled the Virtual’s objections and ordered it to disclose the reimbursement amounts and to anonymously identify the insurance companies “by number and type of carrier”, such as “HMO#1 [reimbursement amount]”, to avoid disclosing any trade secret.
Although the non-final order under review permitted Virtual to maintain the anonymity of the insurance providers, the county court did not make any clear finding as to whether the reimbursement amounts and the insurance companies’ identities constitute trade secrets. Because the order does not include a clear legal conclusion that the reimbursement amounts and the insurance companies’ and uninsured patients’ identities constitute trade secrets, the county court violated the law’s essential requirements. Cabrera, 112 So. 3d at 733; Gen. Hotel & Rest. Supply Corp. v. Skipper, 514 So. 2d 1158, 1159 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). Accordingly, we grant certiorari relief; and REMAND to the trial court to make clear findings as to whether the reimbursement amounts are trade secrets.
CERTIORARI RELIEF GRANTED; REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. (GLAZER and SAYFIE, JJ., concur.)
* * *
