23 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 639a
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2306CASTInsurance — Personal injury protection — Discovery — Interrogatories — Insurer is not entitled to discover cost to medical provider of providing care at issue where cost is not relevant to whether charges are reasonable
XTREME CHIROPRACTIC & REHAB, INC., a/a/o Yohandry Castro, Plaintiff, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INS. CO., Defendant. County Court, 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County. Case No. COCE 12-003635, Division 54. October 1, 2015. Stephen J. Zaccor, Judge. Counsel: Robert B. Goldman, Florida Advocates, Dania Beach, for Plaintiff. Christopher W. Kellam, Green, Murphy & Murphy, P.A., for Defendant.
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS TODEFENDANT’S SUPPLEMENTAL INTERROGATORYNUMBER 15 AND REQUEST TO PRODUCE NUMBER 18
THIS CAUSE having come before the Court on September 4, 2015, on Plaintiff’s Objections to Defendant’s Supplemental Interrogatories and Supplemental Request to Produce and the Court having heard argument of counsel, having reviewed the court file, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises:
Xtreme Chiropractic & Rehab (hereinafter the Plaintiff) filed suit against State Farm (hereinafter the Defendant) for breach of contract of a Personal Injury Protection insurance policy. As part of ongoing discovery, the Defendant propounded Supplemental Interrogatories and a Supplemental Request to Produce. More specifically, the Defendant sought:
Defendant’s Supplemental Interrogatory No. 15
What was the cost to the Plaintiff to perform the services at issue in this case?
Defendant’s Supplemental Request to Produce No. 18
All documents evidencing the cost to the Plaintiff to perform the medical services at issue in this case.
Discovery is controlled by Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280 which provides, “Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter of the pending action.” “Discovery in civil cases must be relevant to the subject matter of the case and must be admissible or reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence.” Allstate Ins. Co. v. Langston, 655 So. 2d 91, 94 (Fla. 1995) [20 Fla. L. Weekly S217a].
This case involves the alleged breach of a P.I.P. insurance contract where the main issue is the reasonableness of the Plaintiff’s charges. The Court finds that the costs of providing the chiropractic care at issue is not relevant to whether or not the submitted charges are reasonable. Therefore, it is hereby:
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Plaintiff’s objections to Defendant’s Supplemental Interrogatory No.15 and Supplemental Request to Produce No. 18 are sustained.
