23 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 187b
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2302DWASInsurance — Personal injury protection — Discovery — All discovery regarding relatedness and medical necessity of charges is stayed pending resolution of issues of whether policy language clearly and unambiguously elects to limit reimbursement to permissive statutory fee schedule and whether insurer can challenge relatedness and necessity of charges after it has paid bills
HEALTH DIAGNOSTICS OF FORT LAUDERDALE, LLC, d/b/a/ STAND UP MRI OF FORT LAUDERDALE, a/a/o Daniel Waserman, Plaintiff, vs. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County. Case No. CONO12-10893(70). July 10, 2015. Honorable John D. Fry, Judge. Counsel: Andrew J. Weinstein, Weinstein Law Firm, Coral Springs, for Plaintiff. Kathryn Winkler, Kirwan, Spellacy & Danner, Fort Lauderdale, for Defendant.
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO LIMITDISCOVERY AND FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER
THIS CAUSE having come on to be heard on July 10, 2015, on Plaintiff’s Motion to Limit Discovery and for a Protective Order and the Court having heard argument from counsel, having reviewed the Court file, and being otherwise advised in the Premises, it is hereupon ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. All depositions and discovery regarding the issues of medical necessity and relatedness are stayed for 30 days (until after Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is heard).
2. The Court will hear argument and determine the threshold issue regarding State Farm’s policy language and whether it complies with the legal precedent set forth in Geico Gen. Ins. Co. v. Virtual Imaging Services, Inc., 141 So. 3d 147 (Fla. 2013) [38 Fla. L. Weekly S517a] as well as determine the applicability of the rationale set forth in MRI Services, Inc., D/B/A C&R Imaging of Hollywood v. Star Casualty Ins. Co, 22 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 856b (Fla. Broward Cty. Ct. 2015) [Editor’s note: the signed court order contained the following written notation, which was not initialed by the judge: “Defendant can submit a memorandum of law regarding the issue of the partially-completed MRI for the court’s consideration on this issue.”].
3. If the summary judgment ruling is not dispositive of this matter, then the Court may entertain additional argument regarding medical necessity and relatedness discovery requests.
4. This Order shall also apply to all other matters currently being litigated against State Farm by Plaintiff’s counsel and defended by the Kirwan, Spellacy, & Danner firm.
