Wednesday, August 20, 2008

No Limitations Placed on Non-Party Deposition of Treating Doctor

NO-FAULT – MEDICALLY UNNECESSARY CPT TESTS – DISCOVERY – NON-PARTY DOCTOR'S DEPOSITION – SUBPOENAED BANK RECORDS
State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co. v. CPT Medical Services, P.C.

(EDNY, decided 7/22/2008)

State Farm brought this action against 47 defendants, alleging that it was defrauded when defendants CPT Medical Services, P.C., Hoss Medical Services, P.C., Channel Diagnostics, P.C., and East-Way Chiropractic, P.C. performed medically unnecessary diagnostic current perception threshold tests ("CPT tests") on patients covered by State Farm insurance, and then submitted bills to State Farm for those tests with fraudulent documentation purporting to support the medical necessity of those tests. State Farm also alleged that the defendants who performed the CPT tests, Drs. Huseyin Tuncel and Andrew Susi, owned and operated the Defendant Medical Corporations in name only, when in fact they were secretly owned and operated by layperson Richard Weinstein through defendant management companies Richard's Medical Management Corp. and Weinstein Healthcare Management, Inc. in violation of New York law requiring medical corporations to be owned by licensed physicians. To carry out their fraudulent scheme, Weinstein and the Weinstein Entities allegedly paid kickbacks to either the treating physicians or other lay persons who controlled the medical corporations in order to obtain patient referrals and letters of medical necessity that they submitted to State Farm to bolster their claims.

State Farm subpoenaed Dr. John McGee, a non-party, to appear for a deposition on April 1, 2008. It claimed that Dr. McGee was one of the treating physicians who ordered CPT tests from the Defendant Medical Corporations. He was also the principal of two non-party medical corporations, Ostia Medical and Wexford Medical, that allegedly billed State Farm for medically unnecessary CPT tests and submitted fraudulent supporting documentation almost identical to that submitted by the Defendant Medical Corporations. State Farm asserts that Dr. McGee's deposition was necessary to:
provide direct testimony about why CPT Tests billed by the CPT Medical Defendants were performed, the basis for certain statements about CPT Testing that State Farm alleges were fraudulent, and the conduct of named defendants in the case, including the CPT Medical Defendants, the Weinstein Entities, Richard Weinstein, Huseyin Tuncel, Andre Susi, Yan Moshe and Dr. Riaz Ahmad.
Dr. Gee moved to quash that subpoena, based on his belief that at his deposition State Farm would question the propriety of his medical practice and whether he violated any rules of professional conduct. Dr. McGee asserted that State Farm has in the past used depositions of other physicians to "intentionally seek[] out information of professional misconduct in order to report the doctors to state authorities," thereby gaining the added benefit of "being able to deny all pending and future insurance claims from those doctors." Dr. McGee contended that he should be afforded a qualified privilege not to answer questions regarding his medical practice because if he were subjected to similar questioning from a professional disciplinary committee he would be given notice of the claims against him, given time to prepare a defense, and granted a hearing.

The magistrate judge overseeing discovery denied that motion, holding:
The court declines to stay Dr. McGee's deposition and directs Dr. McGee to answer all questions that are relevant to the claims and defenses of the parties to this action or that are likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Dr. McGee has not demonstrated the existence of any privilege that would allow him to avoid answering relevant questions that might put his medical license at risk. Dr. McGee's assertion that disciplinary proceedings may be commenced against him as a result of his deposition testimony are speculative at this time, nor has he shown that he would not be afforded due process in any disciplinary proceedings against him.
District Court Judge Leo Glasser upheld the magistrate's ruling:
With respect to Dr. McGee's deposition, there is no authority for limiting depositions based on mere speculation that some questions might put the witness at risk of appearing before a professional disciplinary committee. Dr. McGee is not protected by any privilege, and as such must answer all relevant questions regarding his relationships to defendants and the submission of claims for CPT tests as they relate to State Farm's allegations.
State Farm had also served subpoenas on the Bank of America and Morgan Stanley for financial documents related to Weinstein and the Weinstein Entities to determine how the alleged kickback payments were made. The Weinstein defendants moved to quash the bank subpoenas, arguing that the subpoenas were overly broad, missing return dates, and that State Farm should not be permitted to pursue its own discovery when it had failed to properly respond to the Weinstein defendants' discovery demands.

The magistrate judge denied the motion to quash, and the district court upheld that decision:
The Court is also not aware of any authority that would allow the Weinstein defendants to quash State Farm's subpoenas to the Banks based on the alleged noncompliance by State Farm with discovery requests. Moreover, that objection is now moot pursuant to Judge Matsumoto's finding on July 7th that State Farm has fulfilled its discovery obligations. See Docket Minute Entry dated July 7, 2008. Defendants' objection based on the procedural defects of the subpoenas, namely that they were missing relevant return dates, is also moot because those defects have since been corrected by Plaintiff, as noted in Judge Matsumoto's Memorandum & Order. Thus, the Court finds that, with Judge Matsumoto's directive to add temporal limits in accordance with the dates set out in the Amended Complaint, the subpoenas are tailored to produce relevant evidence directed at whether the Weinstein defendants made kickback payments to the other defendants, and if they did, how those payments were made.

No comments: