Opinion
Civil Action No. 01-684
August 28, 2002
Jeffrey D. Servin, Goldman Servin Associates, Philadelphia, PA, for Plaintiffs.
Jonathan K. Hollin, Powell, Trachtman, Logan, Carrle, Bowman and Lombardo, King of Prussia, PA, for Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
The Defendants in this legal malpractice suit have filed a Motion to Compel Answers to Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents. In the Complaint, the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants improperly incorporated the corporate Plaintiff, and, as a result, several insurance claims have been denied for services that Dr. Baer has provided. (Complaint, at ¶¶ 16, 20). The Defendants contend that Plaintiffs' responses to Interrogatories 2, 4, and 6 and the disclosures pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1)(C) and 26(a)(2) are incomplete.
Interrogatory 2
The second interrogatory reads as follows:
With respect to any and all claims related to medical services provided by Rehabco for which you contend payment was not made by the insurer because of problems relating to the incorporation or ownership of Rehabco, P.C., separately identify. each such claimant with respect to each such claim separately state, . . . (a) the date the services were provided, (b) to whom the services were provided, (c) the nature of the services provided, (d) to whom the services were billed, (e) the amount charged for said services, (f) the amount of permissible payment for said services pursuant to any applicable fee schedule, (g) when if at all, you received any notification from the insurer that the claim would not be paid, (h) the reason(s) given by the insurer for failing to pay said claim and (i) any and all actions you took in an effort to compel the insurer to provide the reimbursement/payment for said claim. Be sure to identify in your answer any and all documents which memorialize, relate or pertain to the information requested in this interrogatory.
The Plaintiffs responded as follows:
We have already delivered to you, three to four boxes of documentation with respect to initially $600,000 worth of claims, which you have already reviewed. There is no further documentation to supply to you.
The Defendants' response explains the inadequacy of this response. In a letter dated December 14, 2001, attached to the Motion, defense counsel explained that the documentation previously provided did not contain information on all of the unpaid claims. Additionally, the files lacked any information about what, if any, amounts had been paid by the insurance carrier, and if they had not been paid, what the insurer's reasons for denial were. Similarly, the files did not contain any information about reductions in the coverage amount due to fee schedules.
Even the supplement attached to the Plaintiffs' Reply does not adequately respond to this interrogatory. In addressing subsection (h), asking for the reason given by the insurance company for not extending coverage, Plaintiffs' counsel asserts,
it is not necessary to answer the same sub question one hundred different times, with, as the defendant knows, the same answer. That is for each and every claim, Allstate stated that in spite of the merits of the claims, they were not going to pay these claims because of the negligence of the defendants' client in failing to complete the proper filings.
(Plaintiffs' Reply, at 2). Yet, the Defendants contend that a majority of the claims provided by the Plaintiffs that they have summarized were denied for reasons other than an error in the incorporation documents. (Exhibit D, attached to Defendants' Reply). Plaintiffs' counsel suggests that "all the information the defendant is requesting here has already been supplied in `mind-numbing' detail." (Plaintiffs' Reply, at 3). Considering this major difference in counsels' interpretation of the documentation supplied, we suggest that more attention be paid to that "mind-numbing detail."
Plaintiffs shall have ten days to supplement the response to Interrogatory 2. Mere reference to the boxes previously produced is unacceptable. With respect to subsection (h), if Plaintiffs contend that each of the claims was denied by Allstate solely based upon the incorporation error, no supplement to subsection (h) is necessary. However, Plaintiffs will be bound by counsel's representation and will be subject to cross-examination on this issue.
Interrogatory 4
In the fourth interrogatory, Plaintiffs were asked when they were first advised that the insurance carrier would not provide reimbursement based on deficiencies with the incorporation of Rehabco. The interrogatory included five subparts asking: (1) whether the communication was oral or written describing the contents or identifying the written communication; (2) whether Plaintiffs agreed with the carrier's position; (3) the reasons for such agreement; (4) the reasons for disagreement with the carrier's position; and (5) the actions taken to challenge the carrier's position or compel payment. In response, Plaintiffs referred to a meeting in May of 1999, at which Plaintiffs were first advised of the corporate deficiencies. A follow-up letter from the insurance carrier was produced and a copy of the Plaintiffs' reply to the insurance carrier is attached to the Response.
We believe that Plaintiffs' statements, coupled with the letters, are responsive to the Interrogatory. It appears from the Response to the Motion that the letter dated February 22, 2000, is the only response the Plaintiffs ever gave the carrier. However, in an effort to provide complete responses to the interrogatories, Plaintiffs shall either state that this was the only action taken by them to challenge the carrier's position or supplement their response by providing any additional relevant information within ten days of the date of this Memorandum and Order.
Interrogatory 6
The Defendants asked the Plaintiff to identify all the employees of Rehabco for the years 1998 through 2001, inclusive. The Plaintiffs identified six individuals. In response to the Motion, the Plaintiffs stated that they did not know the current addresses of four of the individuals and would produce the other two addresses. Those two addresses shall be produced within ten days and to the extent the Plaintiffs have knowledge, they shall identify which employees worked for Rehabco each of the four years identified.
Initial Disclosure
Finally, the Defendants take issue with the Initial Disclosures provided by the Plaintiffs. Specifically, the Defendants challenge the disclosure of damages as required by F.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(1)(C). The information sought here with respect to the amount of damages seems to overlap that sought in Interrogatory 2. Again, mere reference to cartons of information previously produced is insufficient, especially when counsels' review of that information differs so drastically. The relevant rule provides that counsel shall provide a computation of damages and make the supporting documents available to opposing counsel. F.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(1)(C). Hence, Plaintiffs' counsel shall provide a computation of damages within ten days.
Defense counsel also complains that the information regarding Plaintiffs' proposed expert witness is insufficient. In response, Plaintiffs have requested additional time to acquire a substitute expert. Since such a request may impact the District Court's trial schedule, we decline to rule on this request and refer this portion of Plaintiffs' pleading to Judge Kauffman.
An appropriate order follows.
ORDER
AND NOW, ___ this day of ___, 2002, upon consideration of the Defendants' Motion to Compel Answers to Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents, Plaintiffs' Response, and Defendants' Reply, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Defendants' Motion is GRANTED. Plaintiffs shall supplement their responses to Interrogatories 2, 4, and 6 as discussed in the accompanying Memorandum within ten days of the entry of this Order. Plaintiffs shall also supplement the information provided in their Initial Disclosures by providing a complete computation of damages within ten days of the entry of this Order. To the extent the Plaintiffs seek additional time to obtain an expert witness, the matter will be returned to Judge Kauffman for consideration.