9 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 629a
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Discovery — Depositions — Insurer prohibited from taking discovery of medical provider’s billing and payment procedures relative to Medicare, Medicaid, workers’ compensation insurance, and private health insurance that is not relevant to issues in case — Insurer to clarify person it wishes to depose — Treating physician is entitled to a reasonable fee if deposed
BRASS & SINGER, D.C., P.A. (a/a/o Nancy Voltaire), Plaintiff, vs. PROGRESSIVE EXPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 11th Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County. Case No. 01-17949 SP 23 (1). July 18, 2002. Myriam Lehr, Judge. Counsel: Kenneth J. Dorchak, Law Offices of Kenneth J. Dorchak, North Miami, for Plaintiff. Reid S. Baker, for Defendant.
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FORPROTECTIVE ORDER
THIS CAUSE having come before the Court on June 24, 2002 on the Plaintiff’s Motion for Protective Order, and after hearing argument of counsel and being fully advised of the premises, it is hereby:
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Motion for Protective Order regarding the subpoena duces tecum for deposition served by the Defendant in this matter on May 17, 2002, is hereby GRANTED in Part and DENIED in Part, as follows:
1. The Defendant shall be prohibited from taking discovery from the Plaintiff regarding its billing and payment practices relative to medicare, medicaid, worker’s compensation insurance, and private health insurance. The Court finds that such matters are not relevant to the issues of this matter and therefore discovery thereof is not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The Court finds persuasive the cases of Munson Medical Center v. Auto Club Insurance Association, 554 N.W. 49 (Courts of Appeals of Mich. 1996) and Mercy Mt. Clemens Corp. v. Auto Club Insurance Association, 555 N.W. 871 (Court of Appeal of Mich, 1996), which the Plaintiff presented in support of its motion.
2. The Defendant shall be entitled to take discovery regarding Beech Street.
3. The Defendant has agreed to forward a letter to the Plaintiff clarifying the person which it wishes to depose in this matter at deposition set for July 19, 2002. Specifically, whether or not the Defendant wishes to depose a person regarding billing or whether its wishes to depose the treating physician regarding medical necessity and relatedness. In the event that the Defendant wishes to depose the treating physician, said physician shall be entitled to reasonable fee for testifying at the deposition.
* * *
