Volume 12

Case Search

FLORIDA SPINE CARE AND PAIN CENTER, (as assignee for Randy Yarbrough), Plaintiff, v. PROGRESSIVE EXPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant.

12 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 565b

Insurance — Personal injury protection — Discovery — Interrogatories — Motion to compel better answers to interrogatories requesting information related to reasonableness of medical provider’s charges, including information regarding amounts provider accepts from patients and entities other than insurer, is granted

Read More »

FLORIDA SPINE CARE AND PAIN CENTER, (as assignee for Randy Yarbrough), Plaintiff, v. PROGRESSIVE EXPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant.

12 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 565a

Insurance — Personal injury protection — Discovery — Documents — Insurer is entitled to all documentation in medical provider’s possession that evidences treatment performed; that treatment was reasonable, related and medically necessary; and reasonableness of charges, including information regarding amounts provider accepts from patients and entities other than insurer

Read More »

KYANNE L. BOSTON, Plaintiff, vs. PROGRESSIVE AUTO PRO INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant.

12 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 1069a

Insurance — Personal injury protection — Discovery — Interrogatories — Failure to respond — Sanctions — Court declines to strike pleadings or enter default as sanction for insurer’s failure to respond to interrogatories regarding its relationship with physician who performed compulsory insurance medical examination and company that acts as insurer’s agent in assigning cases to physicians who perform examinations, but insurer is ordered to reply to interrogatories

Read More »

SUNCOAST MEDICAL & REHAB CENTERS, INC., (As assignee of Charlene Zack), Plaintiff, v. PROGRESSIVE EXPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant.

12 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 255a

Insurance — Personal injury protection — Discovery — Interrogatories — Insurer is ordered to answer interrogatories concerning use of members, employees or experts of claims management company to testify as experts or perform analysis, examination or render opinions for insurer — Insurer is ordered to answer interrogatories concerning use of chiropractor to perform medical examinations on its behalf

Read More »

HIALEAH OPEN MRI, INC., a/a/o Ruth Regis, Plaintiff, vs. UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant.

12 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 1180b

Insurance — Personal injury protection — Discovery — Failure to comply — Sanctions — Where insurer’s noncompliance with discovery orders demonstrated willful and deliberate disregard of court’s authority, disregard of orders has severely prejudiced medical provider’s ability to adequately prosecute matter since insurer has used documents from underwriting file it refuses to produce to support its defense of material misrepresentation, and insurer’s actions have caused unnecessary delay, insurer’s pleadings are stricken and default is entered against insurer

Read More »

AARON E. THOMAS, Plaintiff, v. PROGRESSIVE EXPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant.

12 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 1070a

Insurance — Personal injury protection — Discovery — Interrogatories — Insured’s objections that interrogatories regarding prior injuries and claims are overbroad, irrelevant, immaterial, harassing and not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence are overruled — Attorney work product privilege objection to interrogatory regarding identity of any persons from whom insured, insured’s attorney or anyone acting on insured’s behalf have obtained statements regarding issues in suit is overruled — Objection to providing information on medical providers on ground that information is contained in claim file is overruled

Read More »

GINA MELOSKIE, Plaintiff, vs. PROGRESSIVE EXPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant.

12 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 767a

Insurance — Personal injury protection — Discovery — Independent medical examination reports and payment records — Failure to comply — Sanctions — Contempt — IME physician is found in contempt and stricken from insurer’s witness list where insured’s preparation for trial set to occur within three weeks has been substantially prejudiced by physician’s failure to comply with subpoena for IME records on grounds that because regular patient files and IME referral files are intermingled in physician’s filing system it would be unduly burdensome to pull all files to identify IME referrals and then copy and redact applicable records — By failing to comply with court order requiring physician to comply with subpoena, physician has shown absolute contempt for statutory obligations — Physician has proven that he has no respect for those obligations by admission that he has not changed filing system, and physician has exhibited no concern or remorse for his inaction

Read More »
Skip to content