23 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 173c
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2302CRODInsurance — Personal injury protection — Discovery — Depositions — Pre-litigation adjuster — Medical provider has right to depose pre-litigation adjuster who made determination as to why provider’s bills were reduced or denied — Insurer’s argument that provider should depose litigation adjuster rather than pre-litigation adjuster is rejected
ORTHOPEDIC TRAUMATOLOGY REHAB A/A/O CELIO RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 11th Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County. Case No. 2014-1175-SP-24 (01). May 13, 2015. Honorable Donald Cannava, Judge. Counsel: Walter A. Arguelles, Shuster & Saben, LLC, Miami, for Plaintiff. Jasmin Carpentar, Matt Hellman, P.A., Plantation, for Defendant.
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TOCOMPEL DEPOSITION OF DEFENDANT’SPRE-LITIGATION ADJUSTER
THIS CAUSE having come before the Court for hearing on May 13, 2015, on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Deposition of Defendant’s Pre-Litigation Adjuster. The Court having reviewed the motion and entire Court file, heard arguments from counsel for each party, and having been sufficiently advised in the premises, finds as follows:
The issue before the Court involves whether Plaintiff may depose the Defendant’s Pre-Litigation Adjuster.
The case arose out of a claim for failure to pay Personal Injury Protection (PIP) benefits in connection with an automobile accident which occurred on or about October 24, 2011.
Pursuant to Florida Statute §627.736, Orthopedic Traumatology Rehab timely submitted its bills to Defendant for payment of medical services rendered and/or diagnostic testing to Celio Rodriguez. As a result of Defendant’s refusal to tender payment at Plaintiff’s reasonable charge, Orthopedic Traumatology Rehab initiated suit. Soon thereafter, Plaintiff sought the deposition of Defendant’s Pre-Litigation Adjuster. Specifically, Defendant was contacted in writing requesting deposition dates for the Defendant’s Pre-Litigation Adjuster. It is Defendant’s position that Plaintiff should depose the Litigation Adjuster instead of the Pre-Litigation Adjuster. Defendant suggests that the information that Plaintiff seeks may be within the knowledge of the Litigation Adjuster. This Court disagrees with Defendant’s Notion as the Litigation Adjuster was not the individual who handled the subject claim and became involved in the handling of the claim only when suit was filed by the Plaintiff. Plaintiff is within its right to depose the Defendant’s Pre-Litigation Adjuster as said individual made the determination as to why Plaintiff’s bills were denied or reduced.
Therefore, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED that:
1. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Deposition of Defendant’s Pre-Litigation Adjuster is hereby GRANTED.
2. The parties shall mutually coordinate the deposition of Defendant’s Pre-Litigation Adjuster within thirty (30) days of this Order.
3. Said deposition shall take place within one hundred twenty (120) days of this Order.
