9 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 486b
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Discovery — Interrogatories — Independent medical examination — Insurer compelled to describe nature of its relationship to and total amount of money paid annually to IME physician — Requests for production of checks issued in association with claim granted with respect to checks to IME physician but denied as to other medical providers
LUTZ CHIROPRACTIC CLINIC, (As Assignee of Cheryl Kreitzer), Plaintiff, vs. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 13th Judicial Circuit in and for Hillsborough County, Civil Division. Case No. 01-25597-SC, Division J. May 2002. Paul Huey, Judge. Counsel: Douglas R. Wight. William C. Rocker, Timothy A. Patrick, P.A., Tampa.
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL
THIS CAUSE having come before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel, on May 2, 2002, both parties appearing through counsel and the Court having heard argument of counsel, it is hereby:
ORDERED and ADJUDGED that within thirty (30) days of this hearing:
1. As to Plaintiff’s interrogatory number eight (8), Defendant shall describe the nature of its relationship with the IME or peer review physician in this case and shall describe and identify any contracts, writings or other documentation pertaining to said relationship;
2. As to Plaintiff’s interrogatory number nine (9), Defendant shall provide the total annual amount of money (year by year) paid to the IME or peer review physician in this case for the last three years; Defendant shall describe and identify all writings, documents and records in Defendant’s possession which would support this information so as to allow Plaintiff to verify same;
3. As to Plaintiff’s interrogatory number ten (10), Defendant shall provide the name of Defendant’s person with the most knowledge as to the information provided in response to Plaintiff’s interrogatory number nine (9) above;
4. As to Plaintiff’s interrogatory number eleven (11), it is DENIED and Defendant shall not be required to list the requested items;
and ORDERED and ADJUDGED that within twenty (20) days of this hearing:
5. As to Plaintiff’s request for production number one (1), Defendant shall provide a certified copy of the insurance policy;
6. As to Plaintiff’s request for production number two C (2c), Plaintiff withdraws same;
7. As to Plaintiff’s request for production number six (6), Defendant stipulates on the record through counsel that Defendant’s reason for denying the bills at issue in this claim was based on the IME physician’s report and/or opinion and not the computer system which recommended any reductions indicated on the “explanation of medical bill payment(s)”; to that end, Defendant further stipulates through counsel that Defendant shall not contest the reasonableness of the amount of the charges at issue on this claim by way of the computer system which recommended any reductions indicated on the “explanation of medical bill payment(s)”; therefor, Plaintiff withdraws this request;
8. As to Plaintiff’s request for production number fifteen (15), Defendant shall provide copies of all checks associated with this claim issued by Defendant to Plaintiff as well as all checks associated with this claim issued to Defendant’s IME and/or peer review physician; Plaintiff’s request is DENIED as to any other medical providers, including those treating Cheryl Kreitzer in association with this claim.
* * *
