Preview
Filing # 85994436 E-Filed 03/06/2019 08:22:52 PM
IN THE COUNTY COURT IN AND
FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA
CIVIL DIVISION
CASE # 19-000628 CC 26
MULTIMED CARE, INC.
AIAIO ARACELYS LEYVA,
Plaintiff,
v.
GEICO GENERAL
INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant.
f
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S
FIRST REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS
Plaintiff, by and through its undersigned counsel, filles its Response to
Defendant's First Request far Admissions and states as follows:
4. Calls for a legal conclusion therefore, denied as phrased. Further, Plaintiff
states that despite its prior requesi{s), to date, Defendant has failed and/or refused to
furnish in discovery a copy of its policy of insurance.
2. Calls for a legal conclusion; therefore, denied as phrased.
3. Calls for a fegat conclusion; therefore, denied as phrased.
4, Calls for a Jega! conclusion; therefore, denied as phrased.
5. Objection. Information sought by Defendant is neither relevant’ to the
subject matter of the instant action nor reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of
admissible evidence. Plaintiff further abjects to this request for admission since it does
not relate to “statements or opinions of fact or of the application of law to fact" as
' Traditionally, “discovery should be denied when it has been esteblished that the information requesied is
neither relevant fo any pending claim or defense nor will it lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.”
Tanchel v. Shoemaker, 928 So.2d 446, 442 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009} (citing Alistate Ins. Co. v. Langston, 655
So.2d 91, 95 (Fla, 1995} see also Fla. R. Civ. Pro. 1.280(bN1) (providing that “[plarties may obtain
discovery regarding any matter not privdeged, that is relevant to the subject matter of the pending
action"emphasis added).required by Rule 1.370 of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. The request for
admission is irrelevant as it pertains to Plaintiff's claim for PIP benefits as any
“deductible and/or co-pay” has no relevancy or rational relation to contractual and/or
statutory obligations of the Defendant in making payment of PIP benefits (which is the
issue framed by the pleadings in this case). “Deductible and/or co-pay" is not a relevant
factor as set forth in Fla. Stal. 627.736. In fact, whether or not a deductible or co-pay is
made by a patient does not in any way, shape, or form alter the contractual and/or
statutory obligations of the Defendant in making payment of PIP benefits. Further, the
request for admission is irrelevant as the instant matter is a PIP case related to an
automobile accident and has nothing to do with “patients with injuries not related to an
automobile accident’.
6. Objection. information sought by Defendant is neither relevant to the
subject matter of the instant action nor reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of
admissible evidence. Plaintiff further objects to this request for admission since it does
not relate to “statements or opinions of fact or of the application of law to fact” as
required by Rule 1.370 of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. The request for
admission is irelevant as it pertains to Plaintiffs claim for PIP benefits as any
“deductible and/or co-pay” has no relevancy or rational relation fo contractual and/or
statutory obligations of the Defendant in making payment of PIP benefits (which is the
issue framed by the pleadings in this case}. “Deductible and/or co-pay” is not a relevant
factor as set forth in Fla. Stat. 627.736. in fact, whether or not a deductible or co-pay is
made by a patient does not in any way, shape, or form alter the contractual and/or
statutory obligations of the Defendant in making payment of PIP benefits. Without
waiving said objection, denied as phrased.
7. Objection. Information sought by Defendant is neither relevant to the
subject matter of the instant action nor reasonably calculated to lead fo discovery of
admissible evidence. Plaintiff further objects to this request for admission since it does
not relate to “statements or opinions of fact or of the application of law to fact’ as
required by Rule 1.370 of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. The request for
admission {s irrelevant as it pertains to Plaintiffs claim for PIP benefits as any
“deductible and/or co-pay” has no relevancy or rational relation to contractual and/or
statutory obligations of the Defendant in making payment of PIP benefits (which is the
issue framed by the pleadings in this case). “Deductible and/or co-pay" is not a relevant
factor as set forth in Fla. Stat. 627.736. in fact, whether or not a deductible or co-pay is
made by a patient does not in any way, shape, or form alter the contractual and/or
statutory obligations of the Defendant in making payment of PIP benefits. Without
waiving said objection, denied as phrased,
&. Objection. information sought by Defendant is neither relevant to the
subject matter of the instant action nor reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of
admissible evidence. Plaintiff further objects to this request for admission since it does
not relate to “statements or opinions of fact or of the application of law to fact” as
required by Rule 1.370 of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. The request for
admission is irrelevant as it pertains to Plaintiff's claim for PIP benefits as any“deductible and/or co-pay” has no relevancy or rational relation to contractual and/or
statutory obligations of the Defendant in making payment of PIP benefits (which is the
issue frarned by the pleadings in this case). “Deductible and/or co-pay” is not a relevant
factor as set forth in Fla. Stat. 627.736. In fact, whether or not a deductible or co-pay is
made by a patient does not in any way, shape, or form alter the contractual and/or
statutory obligations of the Defendant in making payment of PIP benefits. Without
waiving said objection, denied as phrased.
Q. Denied.
10. Objectlon. Despite reasonable inquiry, the information known or readily
available to the Plaintiff is insufficient to enable the Plaintiff to admit or deny this request
for admission at this time. Further, Plaintiff states that despite its prior request(s), to
date, Defendant has failed and/or refused to furnish in discovery a copy of its non-
privileged claim file, including any documents pertaining to other health care provider(s).
11. Objection. Information sought by Defendant is neither relevant to the
subject matter of the instant action nor reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of
admissible evidence. Plaintiff further objects to this request for admission since it does
not relate to “staternents or opinions of fact or of the application of law to fact” as
required by Rule 1.370 of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. The request for
admission is irrelevant as it pertains to Plaintiffs claim for PIP benefits as any “bad
business debt deduction” has no relevancy or rational relation to contractual and/or
statutory obligations of the Defendant in making payment of PIP benefits (which is the
issue frarned by the pleadings in this case).
12. Objection. This request is irrelevant, vague, ambiguous, unclear, and
unintelligently phrased and, accordingly, Plaintiff is unable to respond to same.
13, Objection. This request is irrelevant, vague, ambiguous, unclear, and
unintelligently phrased and, accordingly, Plaintiff is unable to respond to same.
44. Objection. information sought by Defendant is neither relevant to the
subject matter of the instant action mor reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of
admissible evidence. Plaintiff further objects to this request for admission since it does
not relate fo “staterments or opinions of fact or of the application of faw to fact" as
required by Rule 1.370 of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. The request for
admission is irrelevant as Defendant has not pled any affirmative defense(s) pertaining
to “demand letter’ and, accordingly, same is not an issue in this case. Without waiving
said objection, denied.
18. Objection. Information sought by Defendant is neither relevant to the
subject matter of the instant action nor reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of
admissible evidence. Plaintiff further objects to this request for admission since it does
not relate to “staternents or opinions of fact ar of the application of law to fact” as
required by Rule 1.370 of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. The request foradmission is trelevant as Defendant has not pled any affirmative defense(s) pertaining
to “demand letter’ and, accordingly, same is not an issue in this case. Without waiving
said objection, denied as phrased.
16. Denied.
17. Denied.
18. Denied.
19. Denied.
20. Objection. Information sought by Defendant is neither relevant to the
subject matter of the instant action nor reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of
admissible evidence. Plaintiff further objects to this request for admission since it does
not relate to "statements or opinions of fact or of the application of law to fact” as
required by Rule 1.370 of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. The request for
admission is irrelevant as Defendant has not pled any affirmative defense(s) pertaining
to “demand letter” and, accordingly, same is not an issue in this case. Without waiving
said cbjecticn, denied as phrased.
21. Denied as phrased. Plaintiff's complaint complies with the requirements of
Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.410{b) and includes a jurisdictional statement, a statement of ultimate
facts, and a general prayer for relief which does not specify an exact dollar amount.
Plaintiffs recoverable damages are governed by its prayer for relief (ad damnum
clause) and not its jurisdictional allegations. See Woods-Hoskins-Young, Co, v. Stone &
Baker Constr, Co., 114 So. 366 (Fla. 1927) (amount of plaintiffs recovery is limited by
ad damnum clause), United American Lien and Recovery Corp. v. Primicerio, 924 $.2d
848 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006); Humana Health ins. Co. of Fla., Inc. v. Chipps, 802 So.2d 492
(Fla. 4th DCA 2001); Koehler v. Roberts, 661 So.2d 374 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995): Hooters of
America, Inc. v. Carolina Wings, Inc., 655 So.2d 1231, 1233 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); see
also, McDonald v. McDonald, 732 Sq.2d 505 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999).
22, Admitted only that the instant matter is an action for insurance benefits
and that all conditions precedent have been satisfied by Plaintiff.
23, Objection. This request is irrelevant, vague, ambiguous, and unclear as to
which licensing chapter{s} Defendant is referencing within its request.
24, Denied as phrased.
25. Denied to the extent that Defendant's policy of insurance may provide for
medical payments coverage. Further, Plaintiff states that despite its prior request(s), to
date, Defendant has failed and/or refused fo furnish in discovery a copy of its policy of
insurance and/or applicable declarations page.26. Denied.
27. Denied as phrased.
28. Calls for a legal conclusion; therefore, denied as phrased. Further, Plaintiff
states that despite its prior request(s), fo date, Defendant has failed and/or refused ta
furnish in discovery a capy of its policy of insurance.
29. Objection, information sought by Defendant is neither relevant to the
subject matier of the instant action nor reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of
admissible evidence. Plaintiff further objects to this request for admission since it does
not relate to “statements or opinions of fact or of the application of law to fact” as
required by Rule 1.370 of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. The request for
admission is irrelevant as Defendant has not pled any affirmative defense(s) pertaining
to ‘late billing” and, accordingly, same is not an issue in this case.
Respectfully submitted,
MAJID VOSSOUGHL P.A.
Attomeys for Plaintiff
3620 N.W. 7" Street
Miami, Florida 33125
Telephone: (305) 642-2661
Facsimile: (305) 642-6881
py __ & “t
* RE vossoutE 7 ;
|
Fla. Bar No, 02778%0
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
1 HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was sent via
email on this UT gay of _MubAtet 2019 to MANUEL MENDOZA,
ESQ., Law Office of Haydee De La Rosa-Tolgyesi, 2600 Douglas Road, Suite 700,
net 2G.cOrmN,
Coral Gables, Florida 33134, miamipi
Preview
Filing # 85994436 E-Filed 03/06/2019 08:22:52 PM IN THE COUNTY COURT IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA CIVIL DIVISION CASE # 19-000628 CC 26 MULTIMED CARE, INC. AIAIO ARACELYS LEYVA, Plaintiff, v. GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. f PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S FIRST REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS Plaintiff, by and through its undersigned counsel, filles its Response to Defendant's First Request far Admissions and states as follows: 4. Calls for a legal conclusion therefore, denied as phrased. Further, Plaintiff states that despite its prior requesi{s), to date, Defendant has failed and/or refused to furnish in discovery a copy of its policy of insurance. 2. Calls for a legal conclusion; therefore, denied as phrased. 3. Calls for a fegat conclusion; therefore, denied as phrased. 4, Calls for a Jega! conclusion; therefore, denied as phrased. 5. Objection. Information sought by Defendant is neither relevant’ to the subject matter of the instant action nor reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff further abjects to this request for admission since it does not relate to “statements or opinions of fact or of the application of law to fact" as ' Traditionally, “discovery should be denied when it has been esteblished that the information requesied is neither relevant fo any pending claim or defense nor will it lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Tanchel v. Shoemaker, 928 So.2d 446, 442 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009} (citing Alistate Ins. Co. v. Langston, 655 So.2d 91, 95 (Fla, 1995} see also Fla. R. Civ. Pro. 1.280(bN1) (providing that “[plarties may obtain discovery regarding any matter not privdeged, that is relevant to the subject matter of the pending action"emphasis added).required by Rule 1.370 of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. The request for admission is irrelevant as it pertains to Plaintiff's claim for PIP benefits as any “deductible and/or co-pay” has no relevancy or rational relation to contractual and/or statutory obligations of the Defendant in making payment of PIP benefits (which is the issue framed by the pleadings in this case). “Deductible and/or co-pay" is not a relevant factor as set forth in Fla. Stal. 627.736. In fact, whether or not a deductible or co-pay is made by a patient does not in any way, shape, or form alter the contractual and/or statutory obligations of the Defendant in making payment of PIP benefits. Further, the request for admission is irrelevant as the instant matter is a PIP case related to an automobile accident and has nothing to do with “patients with injuries not related to an automobile accident’. 6. Objection. information sought by Defendant is neither relevant to the subject matter of the instant action nor reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff further objects to this request for admission since it does not relate to “statements or opinions of fact or of the application of law to fact” as required by Rule 1.370 of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. The request for admission is irelevant as it pertains to Plaintiffs claim for PIP benefits as any “deductible and/or co-pay” has no relevancy or rational relation fo contractual and/or statutory obligations of the Defendant in making payment of PIP benefits (which is the issue framed by the pleadings in this case}. “Deductible and/or co-pay” is not a relevant factor as set forth in Fla. Stat. 627.736. in fact, whether or not a deductible or co-pay is made by a patient does not in any way, shape, or form alter the contractual and/or statutory obligations of the Defendant in making payment of PIP benefits. Without waiving said objection, denied as phrased. 7. Objection. Information sought by Defendant is neither relevant to the subject matter of the instant action nor reasonably calculated to lead fo discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff further objects to this request for admission since it does not relate to “statements or opinions of fact or of the application of law to fact’ as required by Rule 1.370 of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. The request for admission {s irrelevant as it pertains to Plaintiffs claim for PIP benefits as any “deductible and/or co-pay” has no relevancy or rational relation to contractual and/or statutory obligations of the Defendant in making payment of PIP benefits (which is the issue framed by the pleadings in this case). “Deductible and/or co-pay" is not a relevant factor as set forth in Fla. Stat. 627.736. in fact, whether or not a deductible or co-pay is made by a patient does not in any way, shape, or form alter the contractual and/or statutory obligations of the Defendant in making payment of PIP benefits. Without waiving said objection, denied as phrased, &. Objection. information sought by Defendant is neither relevant to the subject matter of the instant action nor reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff further objects to this request for admission since it does not relate to “statements or opinions of fact or of the application of law to fact” as required by Rule 1.370 of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. The request for admission is irrelevant as it pertains to Plaintiff's claim for PIP benefits as any“deductible and/or co-pay” has no relevancy or rational relation to contractual and/or statutory obligations of the Defendant in making payment of PIP benefits (which is the issue frarned by the pleadings in this case). “Deductible and/or co-pay” is not a relevant factor as set forth in Fla. Stat. 627.736. In fact, whether or not a deductible or co-pay is made by a patient does not in any way, shape, or form alter the contractual and/or statutory obligations of the Defendant in making payment of PIP benefits. Without waiving said objection, denied as phrased. Q. Denied. 10. Objectlon. Despite reasonable inquiry, the information known or readily available to the Plaintiff is insufficient to enable the Plaintiff to admit or deny this request for admission at this time. Further, Plaintiff states that despite its prior request(s), to date, Defendant has failed and/or refused to furnish in discovery a copy of its non- privileged claim file, including any documents pertaining to other health care provider(s). 11. Objection. Information sought by Defendant is neither relevant to the subject matter of the instant action nor reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff further objects to this request for admission since it does not relate to “staternents or opinions of fact or of the application of law to fact” as required by Rule 1.370 of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. The request for admission is irrelevant as it pertains to Plaintiffs claim for PIP benefits as any “bad business debt deduction” has no relevancy or rational relation to contractual and/or statutory obligations of the Defendant in making payment of PIP benefits (which is the issue frarned by the pleadings in this case). 12. Objection. This request is irrelevant, vague, ambiguous, unclear, and unintelligently phrased and, accordingly, Plaintiff is unable to respond to same. 13, Objection. This request is irrelevant, vague, ambiguous, unclear, and unintelligently phrased and, accordingly, Plaintiff is unable to respond to same. 44. Objection. information sought by Defendant is neither relevant to the subject matter of the instant action mor reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff further objects to this request for admission since it does not relate fo “staterments or opinions of fact or of the application of faw to fact" as required by Rule 1.370 of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. The request for admission is irrelevant as Defendant has not pled any affirmative defense(s) pertaining to “demand letter’ and, accordingly, same is not an issue in this case. Without waiving said objection, denied. 18. Objection. Information sought by Defendant is neither relevant to the subject matter of the instant action nor reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff further objects to this request for admission since it does not relate to “staternents or opinions of fact ar of the application of law to fact” as required by Rule 1.370 of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. The request foradmission is trelevant as Defendant has not pled any affirmative defense(s) pertaining to “demand letter’ and, accordingly, same is not an issue in this case. Without waiving said objection, denied as phrased. 16. Denied. 17. Denied. 18. Denied. 19. Denied. 20. Objection. Information sought by Defendant is neither relevant to the subject matter of the instant action nor reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff further objects to this request for admission since it does not relate to "statements or opinions of fact or of the application of law to fact” as required by Rule 1.370 of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. The request for admission is irrelevant as Defendant has not pled any affirmative defense(s) pertaining to “demand letter” and, accordingly, same is not an issue in this case. Without waiving said cbjecticn, denied as phrased. 21. Denied as phrased. Plaintiff's complaint complies with the requirements of Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.410{b) and includes a jurisdictional statement, a statement of ultimate facts, and a general prayer for relief which does not specify an exact dollar amount. Plaintiffs recoverable damages are governed by its prayer for relief (ad damnum clause) and not its jurisdictional allegations. See Woods-Hoskins-Young, Co, v. Stone & Baker Constr, Co., 114 So. 366 (Fla. 1927) (amount of plaintiffs recovery is limited by ad damnum clause), United American Lien and Recovery Corp. v. Primicerio, 924 $.2d 848 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006); Humana Health ins. Co. of Fla., Inc. v. Chipps, 802 So.2d 492 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); Koehler v. Roberts, 661 So.2d 374 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995): Hooters of America, Inc. v. Carolina Wings, Inc., 655 So.2d 1231, 1233 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); see also, McDonald v. McDonald, 732 Sq.2d 505 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). 22, Admitted only that the instant matter is an action for insurance benefits and that all conditions precedent have been satisfied by Plaintiff. 23, Objection. This request is irrelevant, vague, ambiguous, and unclear as to which licensing chapter{s} Defendant is referencing within its request. 24, Denied as phrased. 25. Denied to the extent that Defendant's policy of insurance may provide for medical payments coverage. Further, Plaintiff states that despite its prior request(s), to date, Defendant has failed and/or refused fo furnish in discovery a copy of its policy of insurance and/or applicable declarations page.26. Denied. 27. Denied as phrased. 28. Calls for a legal conclusion; therefore, denied as phrased. Further, Plaintiff states that despite its prior request(s), fo date, Defendant has failed and/or refused ta furnish in discovery a capy of its policy of insurance. 29. Objection, information sought by Defendant is neither relevant to the subject matier of the instant action nor reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff further objects to this request for admission since it does not relate to “statements or opinions of fact or of the application of law to fact” as required by Rule 1.370 of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. The request for admission is irrelevant as Defendant has not pled any affirmative defense(s) pertaining to ‘late billing” and, accordingly, same is not an issue in this case. Respectfully submitted, MAJID VOSSOUGHL P.A. Attomeys for Plaintiff 3620 N.W. 7" Street Miami, Florida 33125 Telephone: (305) 642-2661 Facsimile: (305) 642-6881 py __ & “t * RE vossoutE 7 ; | Fla. Bar No, 02778%0 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1 HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was sent via email on this UT gay of _MubAtet 2019 to MANUEL MENDOZA, ESQ., Law Office of Haydee De La Rosa-Tolgyesi, 2600 Douglas Road, Suite 700, net 2G.cOrmN, Coral Gables, Florida 33134, miamipi