Case Search

Please select a category.

JOSEPH CICCARELLO, D.C., P.A. (as assignee of Miriam Johnson), Plaintiff, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant.

8 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 651b

Insurance — Discovery — Relationship between insurer and physician retained to perform physical examinations on behalf of insurer — Motion to compel response to interrogatories granted<

JOSEPH CICCARELLO, D.C., P.A. (as assignee of Miriam Johnson), Plaintiff, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 13th Judicial Circuit in and for Hillsborough County, Civil Division. Case No. 98-18895 SC, Division J. July 6, 2001. Gaston J. Fernandez, Judge. Counsel: William C. Rocker, Timothy A. Patrick, P.A., Tampa, for Plaintiff. Charles Spinner, Barnett and Associates, P.A., for Defendant.

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED MOTION TO COMPELBETTER ANSWERS AS TO SUPPLEMENTALINTERROGATORIES TO DEFENDANT

THIS CAUSE having come before the Court on Plaintiff’s Amended Motion to Compel, on June 15, 2001, both parties appearing through counsel and the Court having heard argument of counsel, it is hereby:

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Plaintiff’s Motion is GRANTED; Defendant shall answer the following three Interrogatories within thirty days of June 15, 2001:

1. Please state below each and every case, or lawsuit, in which State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company has retained the services of Dr. John Campo, D.C. for the purposes of examining an allegedly injured plaintiff for the past three (3) years.

2. Please state below each and every case, or lawsuit, in which Dr. John Campo has performed any physical examination(s), on behalf of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, either in a form of a written medical examination, deposition or trial for the past three (3) years.

3. Please state below the total fees paid by State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company to Dr. John Campo as to each above-described case, and the total amount of fees paid by State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company for the past three (3) years from the date hereof.

The Court reserves jurisdiction to hear Defendant’s Motion for Extension of Time in the event thirty days is inadequate time for Defendant to serve its answers.

* * *

Skip to content