26 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 984a
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2612DEUSInsurance — Personal injury protection — Discovery — Objections to discovery regarding method employed by insurer to determine reimbursement levels in community, reasonableness of charges and amount to reimburse medical provider and insurer’s position that insured’s injuries are not related to accident are overruled
STEVEN M. BERMAN, D.C., P.A. d/b/a WEST DIXIE CHIROPRACTIC CENTER, (a/a/o Deus, Juselie), Plaintiff, v. UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 11th Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County. Case No. 13-02829 SP 23. January 31, 2019. Luis Perez-Medina, Judge. Counsel: Robert B. Goldman, Florida Advocates, Dania Beach, for Plaintiff. Rashad El-Amin, for Defendant.
AGREED ORDER OVERRULING DEFENDANT’SDISCOVERY OBJECTIONS AND COMPELLING BETTERRESPONSES AND DOCUMENT PRODUCTION
THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon the agreement of counsel with respect to Plaintiff’s motion to overrule Defendant’s discovery objections and compel better responses to interrogatory nos. 15 and 20 of Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories, interrogatory no. 1 of Plaintiff’s Supplemental Interrogatories and document request nos. 7, 12 and 19 of Plaintiff’s First Request to Produce, and the Court having been fully advised in the premises, it is ORDERED that Defendant’s objections are overruled and Defendant shall provide better discovery responses, within 10 days from the entry of this order, as follows:
1. As requested in interrogatory no. 15, Defendant shall describe, in detail, the method employed by Defendant to determine reimbursement levels in the community, for the medical bills submitted by Plaintiff; the geographical area that Defendant considered in respect to this claim; the name of the medical providers in the geographical area considered and the amount of their charges for the same procedures performed in this case; and whether or not Defendant relied on such information in determining the reasonableness of Plaintiff’s charges for the medical bills at issue in this case.
2. As requested in interrogatory no. 20, Defendant shall describe with detail, any and all manuals, studies, statistics, compiled data or other similar sources upon which Defendant relied to determine a usual and customary charge for the procedures performed and for which Plaintiff submitted bills in this case.
3. As requested in document request no. 7, Defendant shall provide a copy of any and all payment schedules used by Defendant to determine the amount to reimburse Plaintiff for the medical bills submitted in this case.
4. As requested in document request no. 12, Defendant shall provide a copy of any and all documents upon which Defendant relied in determining the amount to pay Plaintiff for the medical bills submitted in this case.
5. As requested in document request no. 19, Defendant shall provide a copy of any and all documents upon which Defendant relied to determine the reasonableness of the charges contained in Plaintiff’s bills submitted to Defendant in this case.
6. As requested in interrogatory no. 1 of Plaintiff’s Supplemental Interrogatories to Defendant (Re: RRN), Defendant shall identify any and all documents, materials, and other physical evidence upon which Defendant relies in support of Defendant’s position that (a) the injuries to Juselie Deus were not related to the subject motor vehicle accident; (b) that Plaintiff’s charges for the medical services provided to Juselie Deus were not usual, customary and/or reasonable; and (c) that the treatment rendered to Juselie Deus was not necessary.
