23 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 67a
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2301ARODInsurance — Personal injury protection — Discovery — Documents — Trade secrets — Although contracts between medical provider and HMO/PPO carriers are trade secrets, reimbursement amounts contained in contracts are not — Provider is directed to reveal reimbursement amounts without identifying carriers involved — Provider is also directed to produce information on any patient’s payment of 20% co-payment for CPT codes at issue without revealing any patient information
RADIOLOGY REGIONAL CENTER, P.A. a/a/o ANA RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff, vs. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 20th Judicial Circuit in and for Lee County, Small Claims Action. Case No. 13-SC-52261. May 18, 2015. Honorable Archie B. Hayward, Jr., Judge. Counsel: Brian S. Goldstein, Ellis, Ged & Bodden, P.A., Boca Raton, for Plaintiff. Guillermo Gascue, Conroy Simberg, Ft. Myers, for Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING IN PART MOTIONS TO COMPEL
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Defendant’s “Motion To Compel Better Responses To Request To Produce,” and “Motion To Compel Better Responses To Interrogatories,” both filed March 6, 2014. Having reviewed the motions, the case file, and the applicable law, and having heard argument by the parties on April 13, 2015, the Court finds as follows:
1. Plaintiff filed its complaint on July 11, 2013.
2. In the complaint, Plaintiff claimed breach of contract for Defendant’s failure to pay personal injury protection (PIP) coverage payments to Plaintiff as assignee of Ms. Rodriguez.
3. In the motions to compel, Defendant argued that it had requested Plaintiff provide copies of its contracts with other providers and other information regarding payments, and that Plaintiff had objected that the requests were overbroad, vague, harassing, and that the contracts were trade secrets. Defendant contends the contracts are necessary to determine whether the amounts charged by Plaintiff to Defendant are reasonable.
4. Plaintiff argued at the hearing that the contract rates negotiated with other providers is not relevant to determine reasonableness of a PIP claim’s medical bill. Plaintiff contended that Defendant had not entered into contracts with those providers, yet was seeking to use Plaintiff’s contract rates with other providers to prove reasonableness. Plaintiff argued that the contracts are protected as trade secrets, and the contracts were also confidential and proprietary. Plaintiff agreed it could provide the amounts in a matrix, as it has in the past, without including any identifying details or methodology.
5. The Court finds that Defendant has established a reasonable necessity for the production of the requested information from the contracts, but not the contracts themselves. A claimant for damages for bodily injury has the burden of proving the reasonableness of their medical expenses. Columbia Hospital v. Hasson, 33 So.3d 148, 150 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) [35 Fla. L. Weekly D551a] (internal citations omitted). The information sought by Defendant is necessary to dispute as unreasonable the amount of expenses Plaintiff seeks to recover, if lower fees are charged to different entities for the same services. Id. To the extent Defendant argued that, in other cases, the amounts listed in the payment matrix contradict with the answers provided in depositions and that the contracts would be the best evidence, the Court finds this would be an opportunity for impeachment of those witnesses at trial, and is not a reason to provide the contracts themselves.
6. The Court finds persuasive decisions from other circuits finding that the contracts at issue are trade secrets. See, e.g. Virtual Imaging Services, Inc. v. Zaldivar, 22 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 742a (Fla. 11th Cir. Ct. 2014). Based on that persuasive authority that similar contracts are trade secrets, the Court finds that an in camera inspection is not necessary to determine whether the contracts here also contain trade secrets. The Court notes that Defendant conceded that the contracts at issue contain trade secrets. However, the Court also finds persuasive decisions from other circuits finding that the reimbursement amounts alone are not trade secrets. See, e.g., Id. The Court finds that requiring Plaintiff to provide the amounts would not disclose any methodology or other proprietary means by which the providers calculate the reimbursement amounts. Plaintiff conceded it could create a matrix with the amounts which would not identify the providers or patients, since it has done so in other cases.
7. To the extent the Defendant requested sanctions during the hearing, the Court denies that request. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Defendant’s motions to compel are GRANTED, in part, and Plaintiff’s objections are overruled, in part. As to interrogatories 2, 3, 5, 10 and 12, and production requests 2,3,4, 7,10, 12 and 33: Plaintiff shall produce a matrix based on the information in the contracts at issue, identifying the type of carrier/provider (i.e. HMO #1, HMO #2, PPO #1, etc.), with the contract amount and reimbursement amount for the Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes at issue in this case, for the time period at issue. Plaintiff shall produce all documents evidencing the amount, method of payment, and date received of any patient’s 20% co-payment for the CPT codes at issue, for the time period at issue, in the same manner as above, without revealing any patient information.
Plaintiff shall have 30 days to comply with this order. Failure to comply will result in sanctions.
