STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
DR. ELIAS GOLDSTEIN, DR. IRA CIRULNICK, DR. RICHARD ENGLISH, DR. ALEX WARGO, DR. ALEXANDER XENAKIS, DR. LARRY ULIN, AND FIRST CHOICE CHIROPRACTIC CLINIC OF DAVIE, INC., A/K/A A FIRST CHOICE HEALTH CENTER, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that section 627.736(6)(c) authorizes discovery consistent with Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(a), including depositions, interrogatories, and document production, upon a showing of good cause.
[1] A PIP insurer may obtain discovery under section 627.736(6)(c), Florida Statutes, for information regarding treatment of persons seeking PIP benefits without filing a law…
[2] Discovery authorized by section 627.736(6)(c), Florida Statutes, is the same as discovery authorized by Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(a), including depositions, i…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceState Farm, a PIP insurer, sought discovery regarding payments for services potentially not performed for six insureds. The trial court denied its pet…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Good Cause For Discovery cases and more on FLexlaw
KLEIN, J.
Appellant State Farm filed petitions for pure bills of discovery, as well as discovery pursuant to section 627.736(6)(c), Florida Statutes (1999). It appeals the trial court’s denials of its petitions.
In these proceedings, which were consolidated, State Farm was being billed for PIP payments for six insureds and became concerned that payment was being sought for services which may not have been performed. Section 627.736(6), Florida Statutes authorizes PIP insurers to obtain informal discovery without having to file a lawsuit in order to obtain information about the treatment of persons seeking PIP benefits.
A few months after the trial court denied discovery in this case, this court issued its opinion in Kaminester v. State Farm, Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 775 So. 2d 981 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) rev. dismissed, 789 So. 2d 346 (Fla.2001), in which this court held that the discovery contemplated by section 627.736(6)(c) authorizes discovery which is the same as the discovery authorized by Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(a), including depositions, interrogatories, and production of documents or other things.
The appellee health care providers argue that we should not construe the meaning of discovery under section 627.736(6)(b) as broadly as Kaminester. They argue that the discussion in Kaminester is only dicta and we need not follow it. Whether it is dicta or not, we agree with Kamines-ter and hold that, for good cause shown, State Farm can obtain the discovery authorized by our opinion in Kaminester. We are unable to determine on this record whether good cause was shown in each of the cases which are under review, but we agree that good cause was shown in the cases in which there were sworn statements from insureds denying that they had received health care for which the health care providers were seeking payment. We therefore reverse and remand for the trial court to reconsider in light of Kaminester, and, on a showing of good cause, to grant discovery.
DELL, J., and ALTONAGA, CECILIA M., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Millennium Diagnostic Imaging Ctr., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 129 So. 3d 1086 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013)…nized section 627.736(6)(c) actions as actions in equity. See MRI Services, 807 So. 2d at 786 (noting that the county court had equity jurisdiction over a section 627.736(6)(b) discovery action); see also State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Goldstein, 798 So. 2d 807 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (addressing section 627.736(6)(c) and the circuit court’s discovery order without stating that the circuit court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to rule on the order); Kaminester v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 775 So. 2d 9…
-
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Delray Med. Ctr., Inc., 178 So. 3d 511 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)…entation sought' in Kaminester was directly related to treatments and services provided to the injured party, unlike here where State Farm sought information regarding amounts paid by others. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Goldstein, 798 So. 2d 807 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001), also examined the parameters of section 627.786(6)(b). In that case, the court found good cause was shown where the insureds provided sworn statements denying that they had received health care for which the health care provider…
Authorities Cited
- Kaminester v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 775 So. 2d 981 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)