9 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 51a
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Discovery — Depositions — Where insured’s treating chiropractor’s deposition testimony would relate to business practices of plaintiff professional association, explaining the basis for certain charges as well as the policies and procedures employed to determine that those charges are reasonable, necessary and related to accident covered by insured’s policy, chiropractor’s role is not in nature of expert, but as chief operating officer of professional association, and chiropractor is not entitled to payment of expert witness fee
RICHARD LEVERONE, D.C., DACBR, P.A., on behalf of George Kirby, Plaintiff, vs. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign corporation, Defendant. County Court, 6th Judicial Circuit in and for Pinellas County, Small Claims Division. Case No. 01-1478SC. August 21, 2001. Karl B. Grube, Judge. Counsel: Paul Puzzanghera, St. Petersburg. Robert P. Kelly, Hyde, Gomer & Derrick, Tampa.ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SET REASONABLE FEE
This matter came to be heard on the Plaintiff’s Motion to Set Reasonable Fee. The Court considered the stipulations and argument presented by counsel, finding and ruling as follows.
1. Plaintiff sued the defendant alleging that the defendant has failed to pay certain personal injury protection benefits that were due plaintiff for treatment rendered to the defendant’s insured, George Kirby. Kirby was treated by agents and/or employees of the plaintiff professional association (P.A.). Dr. Richard Leverone D.C. is the chief operating officer of the Plaintiff professional association. It is Dr. Leverone who has requested this court to set a reasonable fee for his appearance and testimony at deposition.
2. Counsel for the defendant seeks to depose Dr. Leverone to determine whether fees that Plaintiff seeks to recover were reasonable, necessary, and related to Mr. Kirby’s automobile accident of December 12, 2000. In his capacity as chief operating officer of the Plaintiff, this court finds that Dr. Leverone’s testimony would relate to the business practices of the Plaintiff, insofar explaining the basis for certain charges, as well as the policies and procedures that were employed to determine that the charges are reasonable, necessary, and related to an accident covered by the defendant’s policy. In the course of explaining the basis for the charges, this court contemplates that Dr. Leverone will refer to Mr. Kirby’s medical records and will explain the entries and how Plaintiff justifies them as being related and necessary in the context of defendant’s policy. In this context Dr. Leverone’s testimony would not be in the nature of that of an expert, but rather as the chief operating officer of the Plaintiff and as witness to explain how and why the Plaintiff made certain business decisions.
3. In the event that the defendant generally confines its inquiries within the boundaries mentioned above, Dr. Leverone would not be entitled to an expert witness fee. This court agrees with the reasoning espoused by the Hon. William Herring in Kurdian v. State Farm Mutual Insurance Co. 7 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 694. (17th Cir. App. 2000).
WHEREFORE, it is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff’s Motion be and the same is herewith denied.
* * *
