Volume 20

20 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 237a

Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2003AGARInsurance — Personal injury protection — Discovery — Trial court departed from essential requirements of law by denying motion to quash subpoenas requiring third-party vendors to produce copies of all payments made by vendors to insurer’s expert for performance of independent medical examinations — Subpoenas demand information that had no relevance to instant case or to relationship between instant insurer and expert — Certiorari review of discovery order requiring information from third-party vendors is proper since vendors have no adequate remedy by appeal — Remand for trial court to narrowly tailor an order directed to relationship between insurer and expert

20 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 5a

Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2001GARCNOT FINAL VERSION OF OPINION
Subsequent Changes at 20 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 237aInsurance — Discovery — Subpoenas duces tecum filed by medical provider against vendor companies that hire physicians on behalf of insurance companies to perform medical record reports and independent medical examinations on claimants, seeking records of payments to physician used by insurer were too broad where subpoenas did not limit information sought to payments for reports or IMEs conducted for insurer

20 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 285a

Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2003COLOInsurance — Discovery — Failure to comply — Sanctions — Dismissal

20 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 1039a

Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2011EDMOInsurance — Personal injury protection — Coverage — Medical expenses — Discovery — Accountant-client privilege — Trial court did not depart from essential requirements of law by denying motion for protective order and motion to quash subpoena duces tecum served on corporate plaintiff’s accountant, seeking financial documents, including corporate tax returns, bank statements, withdrawals and deposits, wage and hourly reports, cash receipts, and ledgers pertaining to the plaintiff and other entities and employees affiliated with the plaintiff — Insurer’s affirmative defense that services for which plaintiff sought payment were not lawfully rendered because corporate plaintiff was not wholly owned by a chiropractic physician and was not properly licensed warrant insurer’s inquiry through discovery as to ownership and licensure of provider and the other entities and persons involved in treating insureds and billing for services in this case — Because deposition testimony was unclear and nebulous with regard to ownership of facility and chiropractic equipment and the relationship between plaintiff and persons allegedly involved in providing medical services billed in this case, documents sought by insurer are relevant and necessary — Accountant-client privilege applies only to communication between accountant and client, and court record does not reveal that any of the subpoenaed documents contained privileged communication, such as notes, which warranted redaction

20 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 764b

Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2008JORGInsurance — Discovery — Depositions — Protective order preventing insurer from having second chance to take deposition was not based on good cause

20 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 804a

Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2008BATIInsurance — Discovery — Depositions — Failure to comply — Sanctions — Mere filing of motion to stay does not allow insurer to ignore requests for deposition dates — Moreover, where motion to stay was not filed until after medical provider made multiple requests for dates, unilaterally scheduled deposition and filed motion to compel, plaintiff is entitled to attorney’s fees and costs

20 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 66a

Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2001DORCInsurance — Discovery — Depositions — Pre-suit adjuster and litigation adjuster

20 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 165b

Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2002SIRKInsurance — Personal injury protection — Discovery — Failure to comply — Sanctions — Where insurer violated order to produce for deposition an adjuster with personal knowledge of how amount paid was actually determined by producing witness with no personal knowledge of methodology used by insurer to determine amount paid, insurer is precluded from telling jury the amount it paid and is ordered to pay fees and costs associated with deposition

20 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 1072b

Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2011BAKEInsurance — Discovery — Deposition of notary who verified sworn signatures of person who signed medical provider’s interrogatory responses may proceed where evidence that same signature and notary page were used in other cases raises legitimate issue of falsification of legal documents

20 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 265a

Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2003PEREInsurance — Personal injury protection — Discovery — Depositions — Non-party medical provider is required to produce person with most knowledge of billing, payments and status of patient accounts for deposition in insured’s action against insurer — Provider is required to produce for deposition person with most knowledge of amounts charged by and accepted for litigation versus non-litigation patients and person with most knowledge of “letter of protection” program, subject to confidentiality provisions of order