fbpx

Volume 23

Case Search

PHYSICIANS MEDICAL CENTER, INC., as assignee for BERNIE BRISTOW, Plaintiff, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant

23 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 341a

Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2304BRISInsurance — Discovery — Medical provider is required either to produce procedure report reflecting each time CPT codes at issue were billed and payments accepted from all insurers and cash paying patients during 2010 or to file objection to producing report — If provider objects that production of report is unduly burdensome, determination of issue will be made in separate hearing — If court concludes that production of report would be unduly burdensome, provider will be required to produce at least one document evidencing amounts billed and accepted for each CPT code at issue from all insurers and cash paying patients during 2010

Read More »

ADRIENE D. HILL, D.C., P.A. assignee of White, Sandy, Plaintiff, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant.

23 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 339a

Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2304WHITInsurance — Personal injury protection — Discovery — Medical provider is required to produce documents reflecting amounts accepted by provider for CPT codes at issue from in-network health insurers, out of network health insurers and cash paying patients for six months before first date of service through six months after last date of service — Provider must also produce complete medical file on insured, including records prior to accident

Read More »

GOLD COAST CHIROPRACTIC CENTER, INC., a/a/o/ ADAM WEIL, Petitioner, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE CO., Respondent.

23 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 312c

Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2304WEILInsurance — Personal injury protection — Discovery — Reasonableness of charges — Broad language of section 627.736(5)(a) allows for discovery of HMO and PPO contracts rates received by medical provider for CPT code at issue in six months surrounding insured’s treatment — Provider has not established that order compelling discovery causes irreparable harm due to trial court’s failure to conduct in camera inspection regarding claim of trade secret privilege where court never ruled on motion for in camera inspection and indicated that it was prepared to conduct inspection

Read More »

VIRTUAL IMAGING SERVICES, INC., (a/a/o Jacqueline Perez, Rolando Santana, & Alberto Galindo Alfonso), Petitioner, v. UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent.

23 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 304a

Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2304ALFOInsurance — Personal injury protection — Discovery — Reasonableness of charges — Trade secrets — Trial courts in multiple cases departed from essential requirements of law in ordering provider to disclose reimbursement rates from other insurers, including those with whom provider had entered into negotiated rate contracts that had confidentiality clauses, without reviewing materials in camera to determine whether requested material constituted trade secret, as provider contended, or whether provider had waived privilege — Moreover, it was unclear from records in the cases at issue whether requested discovery was relevant where policies at issue indicated insurer would pay 80% of all reasonable charges for medically necessary expenses but also referenced fee schedules, and provider claimed that insurer’s explanations of benefits showed payment was based on fee schedule, not on reasonableness of charges — Remand for further proceedings

Read More »

ST. JOHNS MEDICAL CENTER, as assignee for MELISSA BROWN, Plaintiff, vs. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant.

23 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 834a

Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2308BROWInsurance — Personal injury protection — Discovery — Interrogatories — Insurer that elected to calculate reimbursement utilizing statutory fee schedule is not entitled to discovery on matters related to reasonableness of charges — Provider is required to answer interrogatory inquiring about any prior treatment of insured by provider where response may lead to information relevant to issue of medical necessity of treatment

Read More »

HEALTH DIAGNOSTICS OF FORT LAUDERDALE, LLC, d/b/a STAND UP MRI OF FORT LAUDERDALE, a/a/o Della Hope, Plaintiff, vs. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant

23 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 189a

Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2302DEHOInsurance — Personal injury protection — Discovery — All discovery regarding relatedness and medical necessity of charges is stayed pending resolution of issues of whether policy language clearly and unambiguously elects to limit reimbursement to permissive statutory fee schedule and whether insurer can challenge relatedness and necessity of charges after it has paid bills

Read More »

HEALTH DIAGNOSTICS OF FORT LAUDERDALE, LLC, d/b/a/ STAND UP MRI OF FORT LAUDERDALE, a/a/o Daniel Waserman, Plaintiff, vs. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant

23 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 187b

Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2302DWASInsurance — Personal injury protection — Discovery — All discovery regarding relatedness and medical necessity of charges is stayed pending resolution of issues of whether policy language clearly and unambiguously elects to limit reimbursement to permissive statutory fee schedule and whether insurer can challenge relatedness and necessity of charges after it has paid bills

Read More »

HEALTH DIAGNOSTICS OF FORT LAUDERDALE, LLC, d/b/a STAND UP MRI OF FORT LAUDERDALE a/a/o Amichelot Liberal, Plaintiff, vs. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant

23 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 185a

Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2302LIBEInsurance — Personal injury protection — Discovery — All discovery regarding relatedness and medical necessity of charges is stayed pending resolution of issues of whether policy language clearly and unambiguously elects to limit reimbursement to permissive statutory fee schedule and whether insurer can challenge relatedness and necessity of charges after it has paid bills

Read More »
Skip to content