Preview
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15" JUDICIAL
CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY,
FLORIDA.
CASE NO. 2008-CA 002138 XXXX MB AA
TERESA MARIA CORTINAS, M.D., P.A.,
Plaintiff,
v.
ADVANCED IMAGING ASSOCIATES, LLC,
» B
& 8
By a OT
ese GS —
aot a
ROBERT D. BURKE, M.D., P.L., ROBERT D. Co” =
BURKE, and DIAGNOSTIC ANCILLARY 28 m
SERVICES, LLC, sae S oO
seo =
ar.
Defendants/Third Party Plaintiffs, 23 3
Vv.
WALTER E. WOJCICKL, M_D., Ph.D., P.A.,
WALTER E. WOJCICKI, TERESA MARIA
CORTINAS, M.D., P.A. and TERESA MARIA
CORTINAS,
Third Party Defendants.
DEFENDANTS OBJECTION TO NOTICE OF PRODUCTION
NON-PARTY TO RECORDS CUSTODIAN OF MIDTOWN IMAGING LLC
The Defendants, Robert D. Burke, M.D., Robert D. Burke, M.D., P-L. and Advanced
Imaging Associates, LLC, by and through the undersigned attorney files the following objection
to the Plaintiffs Notice of Production Non Party to Records Custodian of Midtown Imaging, LLC
dated February 12, 2010, as follows:
1. The Defendants object to the promissory note showing approximately $4 million that
is payable to MTPA for the sale of MTPA’s interest to Palm Beach Capital and as groundsRE: Cortinas/Wojcicki v. Advanced Imaging et al.
CASE NO. 2008-CA 002138 XXXX MB AA
Page 2
therefore states:
Objection, irrelevant, overly broad, vague, ambiguous, unduly burdensome, unnecessarily
invasive, harassing, annoying, oppressive, and outside the scope of Florida Rule of Civil
Procedure 1.280. The scope of the Defendant’s request is not limited to the issues and subject
matter of this case.
2. The Defendants object to a copy of the letter referenced in Burke’s deposition
testimony that defined the compensation terms between Midtown and Burke for Burke reading
services to Midtown after AIA stopped providing reading services to Midtown and as grounds
therefore states:
Objection, irrelevant, overly broad, vague, ambiguous, unduly burdensome, unnecessarily
invasive, harassing, annoying, oppressive, and outside the scope of Florida Rule of Civil
Procedure 1.280. The scope of the Defendant’s request is not limited to the issues and subject
matter of this case.
3. The Defendants objection to the production of all documents showing all
payments by Midtown to Burke and/or MTPA since July 1,2008 and as grounds therefore states:
Objection, irrelevant, overly broad, vague, ambiguous, unduly burdensome, unnecessarily
invasive, harassing, annoying, oppressive, and outside the scope of Florida Rule of Civil
Procedure 1.280. The scope of the Defendant’s request is not limited to the issues and subject
matter of this case.
4. The Defendants objection to a sample final radiology report for each calendar
quarter where AIA performed the radiological read and the report was transcribed on to theRE: Cortinas/Wojcicki v. Advanced Imaging et al.
CASE NO. 2008-CA 002138 XXXX MB AA
Page 3
letterhead of the Center for Bone & Joint Surgery, P.A. (a/k/a Center for Bone & Joint Surgery of
the Palm Beaches. P.A,) (“CBJ”) and as grounds therefore states:
Objection, irrelevant, overly broad, vague, ambiguous, unduly burdensome, unnecessarily
invasive, harassing, annoying, oppressive, and outside the scope of Florida Rule of Civil
Procedure 1.280. The scope of the Defendant’s request is not limited to the issues and subject
matter of this case.
5. The Defendants object to all documents, including payments records, billing
records, and reports relating to Burke’s deposition testimony that show Palm Beach Sports
Medicine and Orthopaedic Center, P.A.’s (“PBSM”) contractual arrangement was with AIA and
as grounds therefore states:
Objection, irrelevant, overly broad, vague, ambiguous, unduly burdensome, unnecessarily
invasive, harassing, annoying, oppressive, and outside the scope of Florida Rule of Civil
Procedure 1.280. The scope of the Defendant’s request is not limited to the issues and subject
matter of this case.
6. The Defendants object to the Settlement Agreement and Release between Burke
and Palm Beach Capital (PBC), including the final, executed version; and all drafts and as
grounds therefore states:
Objection, irrelevant, overly broad, vague, ambiguous, unduly burdensome, unnecessarily
invasive, harassing, annoying, oppressive, and outside the scope of Florida Rule of Civil
Procedure 1.280. The scope of the Defendant’s request is not limited to the issues and subject
matter of this case.RE: Cortinas/Wojcicki v. Advanced Imaging et al.
CASE NO. 2008-CA 002138 XXXX MB AA
Page 4
7. The Defendants object to Dr. Dodson and Dr. Carden’s patients who underwent
screening CT scans at Midtown, produce written contracts with Midtown; and billing records,
and payment records and as grounds therefore states:
Objection, irrelevant, overly broad, vague, ambiguous, unduly burdensome, unnecessarily
invasive, harassing, annoying, oppressive, and outside the scope of Florida Rule of Civil
Procedure 1.280. The scope of the Defendant’s request is not limited to the issues and subject
matter of this case. Further, HIPPA violations may be violated in response to this request.
8. The Defendants object to all documents showing Burke’s sale of his interest in
Midtown to Palm Beach Capital that discusses or relates to any negotiation or purchase of a
management fee that would be payable to Burke and as grounds therefore states:
Objection, irrelevant, overly broad, vague, ambiguous, unduly burdensome, unnecessarily
invasive, harassing, annoying, oppressive, and outside the scope of Florida Rule of Civil
Procedure 1.280. The scope of the Defendant’s request is not limited to the issues and subject
matter of this case.
9. The Defendants object to all documents relating to: a. Burke’s participation in the
negotiation or formation of the shared ancillary arrangement at Abacoa; and b. Douglas
Badertschefs involvement in he negotiation or formation of the shared ancillary arrangement at
Abacoa and as grounds therefore state:
Objection, irrelevant, overly broad, vague, ambiguous, unduly burdensome, unnecessarily
invasive, harassing, annoying, oppressive, and outside the scope of Florida Rule of Civil
Procedure 1.280. The scope of the Defendant’s request is not limited to the issues and subjectRE: Cortinas/Wojcicki v. Advanced Imaging et al.
CASE NO. 2008-CA 002138 XXXX MB AA
Page 5
matter of this case.
10. The Defendants object to all documents showing wire transfers or payments to
Burke or MTPA relating to the sale of his interest in Midtown to HD and as grounds therefore
state:
Objection, irrelevant, overly broad, vague, ambiguous, unduly burdensome, unnecessarily
invasive, harassing, annoying, oppressive, and outside the scope of Florida Rule of Civil
Procedure 1.280. The scope of the Defendant’s request is not limited to the issues and subject
matter of this case.
11. The Defendants object to all documents relating to the approximately $1.2 million
capital call (in or around 2003) that Burke testified in deposition that Midtown or Palm Beach
Capital required of him and as grounds therefore state:
Objection, irrelevant, overly broad, vague, ambiguous, unduly burdensome, unnecessarily
invasive, harassing, annoying, oppressive, and outside the scope of Florida Rule of Civil
Procedure 1.280. The scope of the Defendant’s request is not limited to the issues and subject
matter of this case.
12. The Defendants object to any documents showing the last day of Douglas
Badertscher’s employment with Midtown and as grounds therefore state:
Objection, irrelevant, overly broad, vague, ambiguous, unduly burdensome, unnecessarily
invasive, harassing, annoying, oppressive, and outside the scope of Florida Rule of Civil
Procedure 1.280. The scope of the Defendant’s request is not limited to the issues and subject
matter of this case.RE: Cortinas/Wojcicki v. Advanced Imaging et al.
CASE NO. 2008-CA 002138 XXXX MB AA
Page 6
13. The Defendants object to all documents for 2004 and 2005 showing payments to
Dr. Irvine Mason or any entity in which he was an owner and as grounds therefore state:
Objection, irrelevant, overly broad, vague, ambiguous, unduly burdensome, unnecessarily
invasive, harassing, annoying, oppressive, and outside the scope of Florida Rule of Civil
Procedure 1.280. The scope of the Defendant’s request is not limited to the issues and subject
matter of this case.
14. The Defendants object to copies of all pleadings in the litigation filed in 2010
between MTPAand Midtown and/or HD and as grounds therefore states as follows:
Objection, irrelevant, overly broad, vague, ambiguous, unduly burdensome, unnecessarily
invasive, harassing, annoying, oppressive, and outside the scope of Florida Rule of Civil
Procedure 1.280. The scope of the Defendant’s request is not limited to the issues and subject
matter of this case.
15. The Defendants object to all documents showing any participation in the
negotiation or formation of the block lease or its amendments (MTI 2095.2114) between
Midtown and CBJ by: Burke; Kevin Johnson and Douglas Badertscher and as grounds therefore
state:
Objection, irrelevant, overly broad, vague, ambiguous, unduly burdensome, unnecessarily
invasive, harassing, annoying, oppressive, and outside the scope of Florida Rule of Civil
Procedure 1.280. The scope of the Defendant’s request is not limited to the issues and subject
matter of this case.
16. The Defendants object to all contracts where Burke signed his name as PresidentRE: Cortinas/Wojcicki v. Advanced Imaging et al.
CASE NO. 2008-CA 002138 XXXX MB AA
Page 7
or Managing Member of Midtown since November 1, 2003 and as grounds therefore states:
Objection, irrelevant, overly broad, vague, ambiguous, unduly burdensome, unnecessarily
invasive, harassing, annoying, oppressive, and outside the scope of Florida Rule of Civil
Procedure 1.280. The scope of the Defendant’s request is not limited to the issues and subject
matter of this case. In addition, a response to this request would require Midtown to assemble a
tremendous amount of documents without any guidance as to which documents are pertinent to
this matter.
17. The Defendants object to any Medicare fee schedules that were used or reviewed
in determining the pricing for professional reading services with; Palm Beach Ear Nose & Throat
Association, P.A., PBSM; and Dr. Carden and/or Dr. Dodson and as grounds therefore state:
Objection, irrelevant, overly broad, vague, ambiguous, unduly burdensome, unnecessarily
invasive, harassing, annoying, oppressive, and outside the scope of Florida Rule of Civil
Procedure 1.280. The scope of the Defendant’s request is not limited to the issues and subject
matter of this case. In addition, a response to this request would require Midtown to assemble a
tremendous amount of documents without any guidance as to which documents are pertinent to
this matter.
IT HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was furnished by mail
and facsimile on this 22nd day of February 2010 to:
Adam Rabin, Esq.
McCabe Rabin, P.A.
1601 Forum Place, Suite 301
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Attorney for Plaintiff and
Third Party DefendantsRE: Cortinas/Wojcicki v. Advanced Imaging et al.
CASE NO. 2008-CA 002138 XXXX MB AA
Page 8
Telephone: 561-659-7878
Facsimile: 561-242-4848
LAW OFFICE OF DAVID W. SPICER, P.A.
Counsel for Defendants/Third Party Plaintiffs
11000 Prosperity Farms Road, Suite 104
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410-3477
(561) 625-6066- aeieneone
Preview
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15" JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA. CASE NO. 2008-CA 002138 XXXX MB AA TERESA MARIA CORTINAS, M.D., P.A., Plaintiff, v. ADVANCED IMAGING ASSOCIATES, LLC, » B & 8 By a OT ese GS — aot a ROBERT D. BURKE, M.D., P.L., ROBERT D. Co” = BURKE, and DIAGNOSTIC ANCILLARY 28 m SERVICES, LLC, sae S oO seo = ar. Defendants/Third Party Plaintiffs, 23 3 Vv. WALTER E. WOJCICKL, M_D., Ph.D., P.A., WALTER E. WOJCICKI, TERESA MARIA CORTINAS, M.D., P.A. and TERESA MARIA CORTINAS, Third Party Defendants. DEFENDANTS OBJECTION TO NOTICE OF PRODUCTION NON-PARTY TO RECORDS CUSTODIAN OF MIDTOWN IMAGING LLC The Defendants, Robert D. Burke, M.D., Robert D. Burke, M.D., P-L. and Advanced Imaging Associates, LLC, by and through the undersigned attorney files the following objection to the Plaintiffs Notice of Production Non Party to Records Custodian of Midtown Imaging, LLC dated February 12, 2010, as follows: 1. The Defendants object to the promissory note showing approximately $4 million that is payable to MTPA for the sale of MTPA’s interest to Palm Beach Capital and as groundsRE: Cortinas/Wojcicki v. Advanced Imaging et al. CASE NO. 2008-CA 002138 XXXX MB AA Page 2 therefore states: Objection, irrelevant, overly broad, vague, ambiguous, unduly burdensome, unnecessarily invasive, harassing, annoying, oppressive, and outside the scope of Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280. The scope of the Defendant’s request is not limited to the issues and subject matter of this case. 2. The Defendants object to a copy of the letter referenced in Burke’s deposition testimony that defined the compensation terms between Midtown and Burke for Burke reading services to Midtown after AIA stopped providing reading services to Midtown and as grounds therefore states: Objection, irrelevant, overly broad, vague, ambiguous, unduly burdensome, unnecessarily invasive, harassing, annoying, oppressive, and outside the scope of Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280. The scope of the Defendant’s request is not limited to the issues and subject matter of this case. 3. The Defendants objection to the production of all documents showing all payments by Midtown to Burke and/or MTPA since July 1,2008 and as grounds therefore states: Objection, irrelevant, overly broad, vague, ambiguous, unduly burdensome, unnecessarily invasive, harassing, annoying, oppressive, and outside the scope of Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280. The scope of the Defendant’s request is not limited to the issues and subject matter of this case. 4. The Defendants objection to a sample final radiology report for each calendar quarter where AIA performed the radiological read and the report was transcribed on to theRE: Cortinas/Wojcicki v. Advanced Imaging et al. CASE NO. 2008-CA 002138 XXXX MB AA Page 3 letterhead of the Center for Bone & Joint Surgery, P.A. (a/k/a Center for Bone & Joint Surgery of the Palm Beaches. P.A,) (“CBJ”) and as grounds therefore states: Objection, irrelevant, overly broad, vague, ambiguous, unduly burdensome, unnecessarily invasive, harassing, annoying, oppressive, and outside the scope of Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280. The scope of the Defendant’s request is not limited to the issues and subject matter of this case. 5. The Defendants object to all documents, including payments records, billing records, and reports relating to Burke’s deposition testimony that show Palm Beach Sports Medicine and Orthopaedic Center, P.A.’s (“PBSM”) contractual arrangement was with AIA and as grounds therefore states: Objection, irrelevant, overly broad, vague, ambiguous, unduly burdensome, unnecessarily invasive, harassing, annoying, oppressive, and outside the scope of Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280. The scope of the Defendant’s request is not limited to the issues and subject matter of this case. 6. The Defendants object to the Settlement Agreement and Release between Burke and Palm Beach Capital (PBC), including the final, executed version; and all drafts and as grounds therefore states: Objection, irrelevant, overly broad, vague, ambiguous, unduly burdensome, unnecessarily invasive, harassing, annoying, oppressive, and outside the scope of Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280. The scope of the Defendant’s request is not limited to the issues and subject matter of this case.RE: Cortinas/Wojcicki v. Advanced Imaging et al. CASE NO. 2008-CA 002138 XXXX MB AA Page 4 7. The Defendants object to Dr. Dodson and Dr. Carden’s patients who underwent screening CT scans at Midtown, produce written contracts with Midtown; and billing records, and payment records and as grounds therefore states: Objection, irrelevant, overly broad, vague, ambiguous, unduly burdensome, unnecessarily invasive, harassing, annoying, oppressive, and outside the scope of Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280. The scope of the Defendant’s request is not limited to the issues and subject matter of this case. Further, HIPPA violations may be violated in response to this request. 8. The Defendants object to all documents showing Burke’s sale of his interest in Midtown to Palm Beach Capital that discusses or relates to any negotiation or purchase of a management fee that would be payable to Burke and as grounds therefore states: Objection, irrelevant, overly broad, vague, ambiguous, unduly burdensome, unnecessarily invasive, harassing, annoying, oppressive, and outside the scope of Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280. The scope of the Defendant’s request is not limited to the issues and subject matter of this case. 9. The Defendants object to all documents relating to: a. Burke’s participation in the negotiation or formation of the shared ancillary arrangement at Abacoa; and b. Douglas Badertschefs involvement in he negotiation or formation of the shared ancillary arrangement at Abacoa and as grounds therefore state: Objection, irrelevant, overly broad, vague, ambiguous, unduly burdensome, unnecessarily invasive, harassing, annoying, oppressive, and outside the scope of Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280. The scope of the Defendant’s request is not limited to the issues and subjectRE: Cortinas/Wojcicki v. Advanced Imaging et al. CASE NO. 2008-CA 002138 XXXX MB AA Page 5 matter of this case. 10. The Defendants object to all documents showing wire transfers or payments to Burke or MTPA relating to the sale of his interest in Midtown to HD and as grounds therefore state: Objection, irrelevant, overly broad, vague, ambiguous, unduly burdensome, unnecessarily invasive, harassing, annoying, oppressive, and outside the scope of Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280. The scope of the Defendant’s request is not limited to the issues and subject matter of this case. 11. The Defendants object to all documents relating to the approximately $1.2 million capital call (in or around 2003) that Burke testified in deposition that Midtown or Palm Beach Capital required of him and as grounds therefore state: Objection, irrelevant, overly broad, vague, ambiguous, unduly burdensome, unnecessarily invasive, harassing, annoying, oppressive, and outside the scope of Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280. The scope of the Defendant’s request is not limited to the issues and subject matter of this case. 12. The Defendants object to any documents showing the last day of Douglas Badertscher’s employment with Midtown and as grounds therefore state: Objection, irrelevant, overly broad, vague, ambiguous, unduly burdensome, unnecessarily invasive, harassing, annoying, oppressive, and outside the scope of Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280. The scope of the Defendant’s request is not limited to the issues and subject matter of this case.RE: Cortinas/Wojcicki v. Advanced Imaging et al. CASE NO. 2008-CA 002138 XXXX MB AA Page 6 13. The Defendants object to all documents for 2004 and 2005 showing payments to Dr. Irvine Mason or any entity in which he was an owner and as grounds therefore state: Objection, irrelevant, overly broad, vague, ambiguous, unduly burdensome, unnecessarily invasive, harassing, annoying, oppressive, and outside the scope of Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280. The scope of the Defendant’s request is not limited to the issues and subject matter of this case. 14. The Defendants object to copies of all pleadings in the litigation filed in 2010 between MTPAand Midtown and/or HD and as grounds therefore states as follows: Objection, irrelevant, overly broad, vague, ambiguous, unduly burdensome, unnecessarily invasive, harassing, annoying, oppressive, and outside the scope of Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280. The scope of the Defendant’s request is not limited to the issues and subject matter of this case. 15. The Defendants object to all documents showing any participation in the negotiation or formation of the block lease or its amendments (MTI 2095.2114) between Midtown and CBJ by: Burke; Kevin Johnson and Douglas Badertscher and as grounds therefore state: Objection, irrelevant, overly broad, vague, ambiguous, unduly burdensome, unnecessarily invasive, harassing, annoying, oppressive, and outside the scope of Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280. The scope of the Defendant’s request is not limited to the issues and subject matter of this case. 16. The Defendants object to all contracts where Burke signed his name as PresidentRE: Cortinas/Wojcicki v. Advanced Imaging et al. CASE NO. 2008-CA 002138 XXXX MB AA Page 7 or Managing Member of Midtown since November 1, 2003 and as grounds therefore states: Objection, irrelevant, overly broad, vague, ambiguous, unduly burdensome, unnecessarily invasive, harassing, annoying, oppressive, and outside the scope of Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280. The scope of the Defendant’s request is not limited to the issues and subject matter of this case. In addition, a response to this request would require Midtown to assemble a tremendous amount of documents without any guidance as to which documents are pertinent to this matter. 17. The Defendants object to any Medicare fee schedules that were used or reviewed in determining the pricing for professional reading services with; Palm Beach Ear Nose & Throat Association, P.A., PBSM; and Dr. Carden and/or Dr. Dodson and as grounds therefore state: Objection, irrelevant, overly broad, vague, ambiguous, unduly burdensome, unnecessarily invasive, harassing, annoying, oppressive, and outside the scope of Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280. The scope of the Defendant’s request is not limited to the issues and subject matter of this case. In addition, a response to this request would require Midtown to assemble a tremendous amount of documents without any guidance as to which documents are pertinent to this matter. IT HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was furnished by mail and facsimile on this 22nd day of February 2010 to: Adam Rabin, Esq. McCabe Rabin, P.A. 1601 Forum Place, Suite 301 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Attorney for Plaintiff and Third Party DefendantsRE: Cortinas/Wojcicki v. Advanced Imaging et al. CASE NO. 2008-CA 002138 XXXX MB AA Page 8 Telephone: 561-659-7878 Facsimile: 561-242-4848 LAW OFFICE OF DAVID W. SPICER, P.A. Counsel for Defendants/Third Party Plaintiffs 11000 Prosperity Farms Road, Suite 104 Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410-3477 (561) 625-6066- aeieneone