23 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 604a
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2306SALOInsurance — Discovery — Depositions — Motion for consolidation of depositions granted — Medical provider’s corporate representative/treating physician is not entitled to compensation for deposition testimony
APPLE MEDICAL CENTER, LLC, (A/A/O SALOMON, GRACIA), Plaintiff, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 11th Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County. Case No. 14-1452 SP 23 4. October 22, 2015. Jason Emilios Dimitris, Judge. Counsel: Robert B. Goldman, Florida Advocates, Dania Beach, for Plaintiff. Matthew Gottlieb, for Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONTO CONSOLIDATE DEPOSITIONS
THIS CAUSE came before the Court on October 20, 2015, upon Plaintiff’s Motion to Consolidate Depositions, and the Court having considered the motion and having heard argument of counsel, and in an effort to reduce costs and promote efficient pretrial procedure, it is
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Consolidate Depositions is GRANTED, as follows:
1. For those cases pending in this division involving Apple Medical Center as Plaintiff and State Farm as Defendant, in which the law firms Florida Advocates and Matt Hellman, P.A. are representing the respective parties (the “Relevant Proceedings”), the deposition of the Plaintiff’s Corporate Representative/Treating Physician shall be consolidated and conducted as one deposition and the deposition of the Defendant’s Corporate Representative shall be consolidated and conducted as one deposition.
2. The parties may conduct their respective examinations and inquire as to those matters relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence with regard to the reasonableness, relatedness and medical necessity of the medical service provided by the Plaintiff, and any other matters relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence with regard to the issues framed by the pleadings in the Relevant Proceedings.
3. Any party may adjourn the deposition, to be resumed on the following business day.
4. As set forth in the Plaintiff’s motion, Dr. Lehrman shall not be entitled to be compensated for his time in testifying as a treating physician in the Relevant Proceedings.
5. Nothing contained herein shall preclude either party from seeking to conduct further discovery depositions in the event that the witnesses produced do not possess personal knowledge sufficient to answer questions presented.
