9 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 118a
Insurance — Discovery — Motion to compel better responses to supplemental request to produce granted in part and denied in part
HANDS FOR HEALTH, INC., D.B.A., ROM DIAGNOSTICS, as assignee of VARSHABEN PATEL, Plaintiff, vs. ALLSTATE INDEMNITY COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 18th Judicial Circuit in and for Seminole County. Case No. 01-CC-1482-20-F. December 6, 2001. Mark E. Herr, Judge. Counsel: Alexander Billias, Morgan, Colling & Gilbert, P.A., for Plaintiff. Steven G. Rogers, Cameron, Hodges & Coleman, P.A., for Defendant.
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL BETTERRESPONSES TO SUPPLEMENTAL REQUEST TO PRODUCE
THIS CAUSE having come before the Court on November 15, 2001 on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Better Responses to Supplemental Request to Produce, (certificate date September 27, 2001), both parties appearing through counsel and having presented the following:
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiff seeks the following supplemental discovery from Defendant:
1. Any and all contracts or agreements by and/or between ALLSTATE INDEMNITY COMPANY and the company that furnished, maintains, or programs the computer or computer software used to review any of the medical bills in this case.
3. A copy of your standards, guidelines, or written policies in effect during the time period of the handling of the claim in this case relating to the use of any form of computer software or programming that reviews any medical bills submitted by insureds.
6. Any and all technical manuals, statistical information, or other data that explains the use of the computer software or computer programming that was used in this case to reduce medical bills, especially with regard to the methods and procedures that are employed in the entry of the data and the manipulation of the data by any statistical analysis.
9. Copies of any and all documentation of the education and training provided to the operator of the computer software that reviewed any of the bills in this case.
LAW AND ANALYSIS
The Court does hereby ORDER and ADJUDGE as follows:
Plaintiff’s Amended Motion to Compel Better Responses to Supplemental Request to Produce is DENIED as to number 1.
Plaintiff’s Amended Motion to Compel Better Responses to Supplemental Request to Produce is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as to number 3. Defendant will provide Plaintiff with a copy of the standards, guidelines, or written policies in effect during the time period of the handling of the claim in this case relating to the use of any form of computer software or programming that was used to review the bills at issue in this case.
Plaintiff’s Amended Motion to Compel Better Responses to Supplemental Request to Produce is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as to number 6. Defendant will provide Plaintiff with any and all technical manuals, statistical information, or other data that explains the use of the computer software or computer programming that was used in this case to reduce medical bills, especially with regard to the methods and procedures that are employed in the entry of the data and the manipulation of the data by any statistical analysis, but only as to the UCR reductions taken on the bills at issue in this case.
Plaintiff’s Amended Motion to Compel Better Responses to Supplemental Request to Produce is GRANTED as to number 9.
Defendant will comply with this Court’s order within thirty (30) days of the entry of this order.
* * *
