8 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 818a
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Discovery — Denial of medical provider’s motion to compel response to interrogatories seeking information as to the financial relationship between insurer and the physician who performed independent medical examination that resulted in termination of benefits to provider constituted departure from the essential requirements of law — Fact that insurer has not named IME physician as its expert has no relevance since it is physician’s role in case, rather than title of expert, that determines relevance of the information sought — Writ of certiorari granted
MEDICAL REHAB AND THERAPY CENTER d/b/a PAIN CORRECTIVE CENTER OF BRANDON, INC., as assignee of Miriam Johnson, Appellant, vs. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee. Circuit Court, 13th Judicial Circuit (Appellate) in and for Hillsborough County. Case No. 01-4863, Division X. County Case No. 98-13580-SC-K. Opinion filed October 12, 2001. Review of a nonfinal order of the County Ct., Hillsborough County, The Honorable Eric Myers, County Judge. Counsel: William C. Rocker, Timothy A. Patrick, P.A., Tampa, for Petitioner. Karen A. Barnett, Tampa, for Appellee.
(PER CURIAM) Petitioner requests review of an order denying its motion to compel response to interrogatories propounded to Respondent State Farm Insurance Company seeking information as to the financial relationship between it and the physician who performed an independent medical examination (IME) of the insured. Based upon the results of the IME, Respondent terminated insurance benefits to Petitioner. The basis for the trial court’s order was that Respondent had not formally named the IME physician as its expert. Petitioner contends that it is entitled to the information sought to discern the possibility of bias on the part of the IME physician, and the inability to obtain it hampers the prosecution of its case. Petitioner cites Allstate Insurance Company v. Boecher, 733 So.2d 993 (Fla. 1999) in support of this contention. Respondent counters that because it has not formally named the IME physician as its expert, the Boecher decision does not apply. Because the trial court’s order departs from the essential requirements of law and has the potential to thwart the truth-seeking function of the trial process, we grant the petition.
Petitioner seeks the information directly from Respondent State Farm as to the financial relationship between it and its IME physician to determine the existence of bias on the part of the physician. Respondent argues that the Boecher decision requires that the physician be named as an expert before the requested information is discoverable. However, the formality of naming a witness as an expert has no bearing on the holding in Boecher, and the opinion makes no distinction between named and unnamed experts. Although throughout the Boecher opinion, the Court refers to the IME physician as the insurer’s expert, it is the physician’s role in the case, rather than the title of expert, that determines the relevance of the information sought.
Factually, Boecher and the instant case are identical. In Boecher, the plaintiff sought discovery of the financial relationship between the physician conducting a compulsory IME and the insurer retaining him. The trial court granted a motion to compel disclosure by the insurance company; the Fourth District Court of Appeal denied certiorari relief to the insurer. That decision was approved by the Supreme Court. Here, we achieve the same result by granting certiorari. To do otherwise would allow Respondent to use the delaying of the naming of its expert as a shield in an attempt to prevent the discovery, while using the results of the IME as a sword to terminate benefits.
It is therefore ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the writ is GRANTED, and the order of the trial court is REVERSED. (Judges Arnold and Maye concur.)
* * *
