23 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 1060a
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2310POSAInsurance — Personal injury protection — Discovery — Agreement wherein plaintiff collection agency purchased receivables from medical provider is not discoverable — Standing — Absent privity, insurer cannot challenge assignment between plaintiff and provider
DORAL HEALTH CENTER, P.A. (A/A/O MARIA POSADA), Plaintiff, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INS. CO., Defendant. County Court, 11th Judicial Circuit in and for Miami Dade County. Case No. 13-1257 SP 24. January 28, 2016. Donald J. Cannava, Judge. Counsel: Ryan Peterson, Patino Law Firm, Hialeah, for Plaintiff. John Leinicke, Roig, for Defendant.
ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTIONTO COMPEL DISCOVERY
THE COURT, after having reviewed the Court File, hearing the argument of parties hereby orders as follows:
1. In this matter, the lawsuit was originally brought by Doral Health Center, P.A. (“Doral”). Subsequent to the inception of the litigation, Medical Professional Collections, Inc. (“Medical”) purchased the receivables from Doral. Medical currently maintains this lawsuit pursuant to Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.260(c).
2. On December 17, 2015, the parties came before the Court for a hearing on the Defendant’s Motion to Compel Better Responses to certain discovery. The Plaintiff objected to the production of the agreement between Doral and Medical, wherein Medical purchased the receivables at issue in this lawsuit, citing objections on grounds of trade secret privilege as well as relevancy, and that the document was not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The Court reserved ruling subject to a review of the agreement’s contents.
3. The Plaintiff provided a copy of the agreement to the Court, and the Court has reviewed the agreement in camera.
4. After a review of the document in question and hearing the argument of the parties, the Court finds that the document is not relevant as it is not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The issues in this lawsuit are whether certain medical services are reasonable, related, and medically necessary, and affirmative defenses concerning whether the medical bills were submitted timely. At this time, nothing in the agreement tends to prove or disprove any fact relevant to the issues as framed by the pleadings in this case.
5. Regarding the issue of standing, the court relies on Digital Medical Diagnostics v. Allstate, 15 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 1147b (Fla. 11th Circuit Dade County, October 2, 2008), certiorari denied April 24, 2009 for the proposition that, without privity, the Defendant may not challenge the assignment contract between Medical and Doral.
