16 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 1157a
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 1612GRAN
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Discovery — Depositions — Medical provider’s objections to subpoena duces tecum requiring production at deposition of documents reflecting fee schedule, relationship with billing company, sharing of facilities or equipment, correspondence regarding billing procedures and fees, and documents relating to treatment and billing for insured are overruled
JOHN GRANONE, P.A., (Patient: MERCEDES ROGERS), Plaintiff, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 6th Judicial Circuit in and for Pasco County. Case No. 51-2008-SC-004955-WS, Section W. September 24, 2009. Candy Morris VanDercar, Judge. Counsel: Tammy B. Denbo, Masten, Lyerly, Peterson &. Denbo, LLC, Tampa. Chad Christensen.
ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS TO PARAGRAPHS 1-9 OF EXHIBIT “A” TO DEFENDANT’S NOTICES OF TAKING DEPOSITION DUCESTECUM RE: JOHN GRANONE, D.C. & JASON GOLD SMITH & SUBPOENAS FOR SAME
THIS CAUSE came for consideration upon Plaintiff’s Objections to Defendant’s Notices of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum regarding John Granone, D.C. and Jason Goldsmith and Subpoenas for same, and a hearing occurred on August 7, 2009. The pertinent facts are as follows:
FACTS
1. This litigation involves Plaintiff, John Granone, P.A., seeking the recovery of additional Personal Injury Protection benefits from State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“STATE FARM”) with regard to STATE FARM’s insured, Mercedes Rogers.
2. Counsel for STATE FARM scheduled the depositions of: John Granone, D.C., who is the treating physician and owner of John Granone, P.A.; and John Granone D.C.’s assistant, Jason Goldsmith. Counsel for STATE FARM served Plaintiff’s counsel with a Notice of Taking Deposition and Subpoena Duces Tecum for each deposition and detailed its document requests in an “Exhibit A”.
3. Counsel for Plaintiff then filed a two paragraph pleading entitled Plaintiff’s Objections to Defendant’s Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum. Paragraph one of this pleading claimed that videotaping of the depositions was not necessary. Counsel for STATE FARM responded and provided authority supporting its right to take videotaped depositions. During the hearing on August 7, 2009, Plaintiff’s counsel orally withdrew this portion of its objections.
4. The second paragraph of Plaintiff’s Objections to Defendant’s Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum stated that STATE FARM’s deposition notice “requests documentation which is ambiguous, overly broad, irrelevant and unduly burdensome.” No further detailed objections were provided, nor was an Affidavit specifying the burdensomeness provided.
5. STATE FARM responded to Plaintiff’s motion and asserted that the documentation requested was directly relevant to Plaintiff’s claim and this litigation. STATE FARM asserted that by Plaintiff filing this litigation, Plaintiff put the subjects of billing, payment, whether the services were lawfully rendered, and whether the services were reasonable, related and necessary at issue in this case; thus, the documents requested are relevant and appropriate.
6. A hearing occurred on Plaintiff’s objections on August 7, 2009. An insufficient amount of hearing time was reserved by Plaintiff’s counsel for the Court to fully address Plaintiff’s objections to each paragraph in STATE FARM’s document request, and Plaintiff’s motion did not narrow the issues by specifying the paragraphs where there were specific objections. Accordingly, the allotted hearing time only permitted paragraphs one through nine (1-9) of the documents requested in STATE FARM’s “Exhibit A” to be addressed and the Court’s findings with regard to these paragraphs are specified in the findings section below.
7. The documents requested in paragraphs one through nine (1-9) of STATE FARM’s “Exhibit A” to the Notices of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum regarding John Granone, D.C. and Jason Goldsmith and Subpoenas are as follows:
(1) Your fee schedule(s) in effect on each date of treatment for STATE FARM’s insured.;
(2) Any and all forms completed and/or signed by STATE FARM’s insured, including but not limited to assignments of benefits, directions to pay, disclosure and acknowledgement forms, medical history questionnaires, daily sign in/sign out sheets.;
(3) Copies of file jackets and all computer notes regarding STATE FARM’s insured.;
(4) All correspondence, memos, letters, documents and materials of whatever nature between you and other doctors, medical providers, the American Medical Association, and/or any other group, society or organization regarding billing amounts, billing procedures and fees.;
(5) Copies of all results and reports from diagnostic tests, and any other tests, as well as handwritten prescriptions and notes regarding STATE FARM’s insured.;
(6) The entire billing file, including, but not limited to: copies of bills submitted to any insurer; super bills; fee sheets; and any paperwork or resource used to determine the CPT codes and modifiers billed regarding STATE FARM’s insured.;
(7) If JOHN GRANONE, P.A. shares facilities and/or equipment and/or services with any other entity/individual, please identify the entity/individual by name, provide the business address and telephone number for the entity/individual and provide copies of any contracts, agreements, leases, memos of understanding or any other documents pertaining to that arrangement.;
(8) Please identify any billing company, Medical Director, physician, medical management company, and/or coding company utilized by your clinic, including names, business addresses and telephone numbers for these companies/entities.; and
(9) Copies of any contracts, agreements, leases, memos of understanding, or any other documents between JOHN GRANONE, P.A., any billing company, any Medical Director, any physician, any medical management company, any coding company and any health care provider that rendered services for STATE FARM’s insured.
8. With regard to paragraphs ten through twenty-six (10-26) of the “Exhibit A”, if Plaintiff would like the Court to address these document requests, Plaintiff’s counsel shall file an amended motion that specifically states each item that is being objected to, the legal basis supporting the objections, and Plaintiff’s counsel shall reschedule a hearing on same, with ample time reserved.
FINDINGS
With regard to STATE FARM’s requests in paragraphs one through nine (1-9) of its “Exhibit A” to the Notices of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum regarding John Granone, D.C. and Jason Goldsmith and Subpoenas for same, this Court finds that the requests were appropriate and relevant to this litigation.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:
Plaintiff’s objections to STATE FARM’s requests in paragraphs one through nine (1-9) of its “Exhibit A” to the Notices of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum regarding John Granone, D.C. and Jason Goldsmith and Subpoenas for same are hereby OVERRULED and Plaintiff shall provide the requested documentation within those paragraphs. The remaining paragraphs of the requests will only be addressed by this Court if the proper amended motion is filed and ample hearing time reserved, as specified above.