9 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 709a
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Discovery — Insured’s subpoena for deposition duces tecum of third-party vendor that coordinated and scheduled the independent medical examination upon which insurer relied in denying claim, requesting entire PIP file provided by insurer for scheduling the IME, is limited — IME vendor is compelled to produce documents regarding scheduling of insured’s IME, insured’s IME. and the preparation of insured’s IME report; contracts between vendor and IME physician; file and new doctor sign-up packet provided by vendor to IME physician; amounts vendor charged insurer and paid IME physician; vendor paid invoice history for IME physician, and price lists for scheduling IMEs, peer reviews, and records reviews for calendar year of IME — Copies of reports of other IMEs conducted by IME physician who examined insured should be obtained directly from IME physician — Vendor not required to produce all documents signed by IME physician
SANDRA GRIX, Plaintiff, vs. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 9th Judicial Circuit in and for Orange County. Case No. CCO 02 2799. August 28, 2002. C. Jeffery Arnold, Judge. Counsel: Alexander Billias, Morgan, Colling & Gilbert, P.A., Orlando, for Plaintiff. John F. Panzarella, Tampa, for Concentra Medical Examinations. William Pratt, Orlando, for Defendant.
ORDER ON CONCENTRA MEDICALEXAMINATIONS’ OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF’SSUBPOENA FOR DEPOSITION DUCES TECUM
This matter having come before the Court on August 6, 2002 on Concentra Medical Examinations’ Objection to Subpoena for Deposition Duces Tecum, (certificate date July 19, 2002), the Court having reviewed the file, having heard argument of counsel and being fully advised in the premises:
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
1. This is a claim for personal injury protection benefits arising out of an automobile accident that occurred on May 15, 2001.
2. Defendant relied upon an independent medical examination conducted by Rhett L. Harwell, D.C., to deny payment for the medical bills at issue in this litigation.
3. Concentra Medical Examinations was the third-party vendor that coordinated and scheduled the independent medical examination at the request of Defendant.
4. On June 10, 2002, Plaintiff served its Subpoena for Deposition Duces Tecum on Concentra Medical Examinations.
5. In response, Concentra Medical Examinations filed its Objection to Subpoena Duces Tecum.
FACTS
6. In its Subpoena for Deposition Duces Tecum, Plaintiff requested the following:
The entire Personal Injury Protection file that was provided to you by Defendant, (or anyone on Defendant’s behalf), for the purpose of scheduling an Independent Medical Examination of Plaintiff, cover to cover, including original jackets and everything contained within the file, including but not limited to:
(a)Any and all documents, correspondence, notes, faxes, medical records, billing statements, reports, memoranda, charts, x-rays, MRIs, etc., regarding the scheduling of the Independent Medical Examination of Plaintiff.
(b) Any and all documents, correspondence, notes, faxes, medical records, billing statements, reports, memoranda, e-mail messages, charts, x-rays, MRIs, etc., regarding the Independent Medical Examination of Plaintiff.
(c) Any and all documents, correspondence, notes, faxes, medical records, billing statements, reports, memoranda, etc., regarding the preparation and drafting of the Independent Medical Examination Report and/or Addendum(s) of Plaintiff.
(d) Any and all documents, including but not limited to, correspondence, notes, faxes, memoranda, e-mail messages, phone messages, reports, directives, etc., that you have been provided by Defendant, or anyone on behalf of Defendant, regarding the suggested or recommended format, length, form, substance, content, appearance, organization, etc., of Independent Medical Examination Reports and Addendums.
(e) Any and all documents, including but not limited to, correspondence, notes, faxes, memoranda, e-mail messages, phone messages, reports, directives, etc., regarding the suggested or recommended format, length, form, substance, content, appearance, organization, etc., of Independent Medical Examination Reports and Addendums, that you have provided to the doctor who conducted the Independent Medical Examination of Plaintiff.
(f) Any and all wage and compensation records for the prior three (3) years, including but not limited to W-2 forms, egarding the compensation you have provided the doctor who conducted the Independent Medical Examination of Plaintiff.
(g) Any and all scheduling records for the prior three (3) years, regarding amount or number of Independent Medical Examinations that have been conducted by the doctor who conducted the Independent Medical Examination of Plaintiff.
(h) Copies of any and all Independent Medical Examination Reports and/or Addendums by the doctor who examined Plaintiff, with patients’ name redacted to protect patient confidentiality.
(i) Any and all contracts between you and the doctor who conducted the Independent Medical Examination of Plaintiff.
(j) Any and all documents, including but not limited to, correspondence, notes, faxes, memoranda, reports, directives, etc., that were signed by the doctor who conducted the Independent Medical Examination of Plaintiff.
(k) The entire file that you provided to the doctor who conducted the Independent Medical Examination of Plaintiff, cover to cover, including original jackets and everything contained within the file.
(l) Any and all price lists for scheduling Independent Medical Examinations, Peer Reviews, and/or Records Reviews that you or your company generated, maintained, and/or utilized.
(m) The entire amount you or your company paid the doctor who conducted the Independent Medical Examination of Plaintiff.
(n) The entire amount you or your company charged Plaintiff’s insurer for scheduling the Independent Medical Examination, Peer Review, and/or Records Review of Plaintiff.
LAW AND ANALYSIS
It is hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED that:
7. Concentra Medical Examinations shall produce the documents responsive to paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (g), (i), (k), (m), and (n) of Plaintiff’s Subpoena Duces Tecum regarding the independent medical examination conducted by Rhett L. Harwell, D.C.
8. Regarding paragraphs (d) and (e) of Plaintiff’s Subpoena Duces Tecum, this Court Orders Concentra Medical Examinations to produce the “new doctor sign-up packet” and any corresponding updates that were provided to Rhett L. Harwell, D.C.
9. Regarding paragraphs (f) and (g) of Plaintiff’s Subpoena Duces Tecum, this Court Orders Concentra Medical Examinations to produce a “vendor paid invoice history” for Rhett L. Harwell, D.C.
10. Regarding paragraph (h) of Plaintiff’s Subpoena Duces Tecum, this Court finds that Plaintiff should obtain the documents responsive to this request directly from Rhett L. Harwell, D.C. However, if Rhett L. Harwell, D.C. is not in possession of said documents, Plaintiff may move this Court for an Order compelling Concentra Medical Examinations to produce the documents responsive to this request.
11. Regarding paragraph (j) of Plaintiff’s Subpoena Duces Tecum, this Court finds that Concentra Medical Examinations is not required to produce the documents responsive to this request.
12. Regarding paragraph (l) of Plaintiff’s Subpoena Duces Tecum, this Court Orders Concentra Medical Examinations to produce the price lists for the calendar year in which Rhett L. Harwell, D.C., conducted the independent medical examination at issue in this case for the Concentra Medical Examinations office that coordinated and scheduled the independent medical examination at issue in this case, as well as, all Concentra Medical Examinations offices in the State of Florida.
13. Concentra Medical Examinations will produce all documents Ordered herein at the deposition of the person with the most knowledge from Concentra Medical Examinations, which is scheduled to take place at 1:00 p.m. on October 9, 2002.
14. The Court recognizes that Concentra Medical Examinations is seeking a Protective Order and instructs the parties to attempt to agree on an appropriate Protective Order. In the event that the parties cannot agree on an appropriate Protective Order, this Court retains jurisdiction to address this issue at a later date.
* * *
