Volume 14

Case Search

SPINE & REHAB MEDICINE, P.A., (as assignee of Frank Molino, Jr.), Plaintiff, v. DAIRYLAND INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant.

14 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 167a

Insurance — Personal injury protection — Discovery — Interrogatories — Insurer is required to provide better answer to interrogatory asking for total amount of money paid by insurer or any subsidiaries in three-year period to certain entity — Insurer is required to produce every explanation of benefits and explanation of reimbursement generated for CPT codes at issue in geozip area for three months prior to and three months after dates of service

Read More »

MITCHELL R. POLLAK, M.D., P.A., (Ethelbert Victor, Patient), Plaintiff, vs. UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant.

14 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 187a

Insurance — Personal injury protection — Discovery — Interrogatories — Insurer’s objection to interrogatory, which inquires into factual basis for each request for admissions not unequivocally admitted by insurer on grounds that interrogatory seeks disclosure of opinion and also seeks to have insurer prepare provider’s case, is legally insufficient, groundless and improper under rule 1.340(b) — Further, interrogatory that does not seek mental impressions, conclusions or legal theories of counsel, but only seeks opinion of party is not objectionable — Motion to compel granted

Read More »

UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE CO., a Florida Corporation, Appellant, vs. SOUTH FLORIDA PAIN & REHABILITATION, P.A., (a/a/o Sasha Reid), Appellee.

14 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 819a

Insurance — Personal injury protection — Discovery — Appeals — On appeal of summary judgment order entered against insurer after striking of insurer’s expert witness as sanction for noncompliance with discovery orders, appellate court will not determine whether information sought in interrogatories was proper or evaluate the sufficiency of insurer’s answers where those issues would have been suitable for certiorari review of trial court’s orders compelling better answers — No abuse of discretion in striking expert witness where insurer was compelled four times by court order to provide answers to interrogatory regarding expert’s testimony in other cases, was subjected to monetary sanctions for noncompliance twice and has yet to provide ordered response

Read More »

MGA INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. ADVANCED CHIROPRACTIC & REHABILITATION CENTER, Appellee.

14 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 1095b

Insurance — Personal injury protection — Verdict form — Abuse of discretion to use verdict form that did not require jury to find treatment provided was reasonable in addition to finding treatment was necessary and related to accident where form was inconsistent with jury instructions — Jurors — Challenge — Cause — Where there was reasonable doubt that juror challenged for cause could render impartial decision because juror’s answers regarding objectivity toward insurance companies were equivocal and conditional, trial court erred in failing to strike juror — Discovery — Expert witnesses — Failure to disclose — Where pretrial order required parties to disclose witnesses, trial court abused its discretion by allowing undisclosed expert witness to testify to prejudice of insurer — Remanded for new proceeding

Read More »

UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE CO., Appellant, vs. DAVID NAPOLI, etc., Appellee.

14 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 1037b

Insurance — Personal injury protection — Discovery — Failure to comply — Sanctions — No abuse of discretion in entering order excluding evidence and testimony due to insurer’s failure to disclose witness information where insurer exhibited continuing pattern of noncompliance with discovery orders, and trial court had admonished insurer for noncompliance and clearly warned that future noncompliance would result in sanctions tantamount to default

Read More »

NEUROLOGY ASSOCIATES OF NORTH FLORIDA, INC., (as assignee of Jindra Marion), Plaintiff, v. PROGRESSIVE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant.

14 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 78b

Insurance — Personal injury protection — Discovery — Expert witnesses — Treating physician — Medical provider’s motion for protective order against insurer’s request for expert discovery information regarding treating physician’s experience as expert witness is granted where physician will testify regarding medical necessity of treatment as treating physician, not as retained expert, and physician’s involvement with any prior independent medical examinations or peer reviews is immaterial to medical necessity issue

Read More »
Skip to content