If you perform a Google search for “percutaneous disc decompression” you will obtain a list of care providers detailing their PDD services.
Add the word “fraud” to your search and, at the top of the Google results, will be articles (here and here) questioning these procedures and allegedly inflated costs — with reference to Palm Beach County practitioners.
Enter the Fourth District’s opinion this week in Columbia Hospital (Palm Beaches) Limited Partnership d/b/a Columbia Hospital v. Catherin Hasson, Mark Hasson and Hourhan Elsawy (per curiam).
A personal injury plaintiff claimed she suffered injuries and received medical treatment (including a “perc disc” procedure) at the hospital, for which she was billed $19,000.
Defendants sent a subpoena to the hospital for the plaintiff’s records as well as the amount the hospital has charged patients with and without insurance vs. those with letters of protection and for differences in billing for litigation vs. non-litigation patients. The Defendants’ purpose was to determine the reasonableness of the charges. The hospital claimed a trade secret sought a protective order.
The court held that the defendants were entitled to discover whether non-litigation patients were charged a lower fee for the same procedure. However, the trial court was instructed to take protective steps under F.S. 90.506 to ensure the trade secret(s) were protected with a confidentiality order or agreement.
Taken differently, the opinion sets out steps to obtain this kind of information:
1. Determine if it is a trade secret via in camera inspection.
2. Pursue hearing on compulsion to produce and/or produce in camera.
3. Follow F.S. 90.506 regarding confidential production, if ordered.