 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
American Home Assurance Co. v. Bry2/27/2004
t two prior industrial injuries involving her low back, one on or about May 4, 1997, and the other on October 11, 1997. The insurer alleges that the claimant has failed to cooperate with its investigation of her present claim. In particular, it alleges she has not cooperated with its attempt to obtain information about prior low-back injuries and medical care. It seeks to compel her cooperation with its investigation and further asks the Court to determine whether it is liable for her claim.
I did not appreciate the nature of this proceeding until my recent file review. I did hold a telephone conference call with the claimant and counsel for the insurer on September 23, 2002. That conference concerned the claimant's objection to a scheduled deposition (see Court file face sheet), but my minute entry regarding the conference indicates that I only addressed the claimant's request for additional time to find an attorney. I undoubtedly did a quick review of the file at that time but the nature of the proceeding obviously did not register with me.
My current file review is a more serious and in-depth review since the pending discovery dispute requires formal resolution. Specifically, the insurer is seeking to compel answers to interrogatories propounded March 10, 2003.
The motion to compel answers to the discovery was not filed until December 22, 2003. However, the delay in bringing the motion is explained by the fact that for several months the parties on their own were attempting to resolve the dispute and the claimant was attempting to find an attorney. The procedural history is set out below:
a After initial efforts to resolve the case were unfruitful, the hearing examiner directed the claimant to respond to the petition, which she did on January 27, 2003. The claimant asserted, among other things, that she had signed papers giving the insurer access to her prior back injuries and that she would sign medical releases "only pertaining to my back area injuries." She asserted that investigation of any and all of her medical problems unrelated to her back constituted an invasion of privacy. Finally, she asserted that the injury at issue was a new injury and caused her permanent disability.
b On March 10, 2003, the insurer served Petitioner/Insurer's First Set of Combined Discovery Requests to Respondent.
c On July 15, 2003, new counsel appeared on behalf of the insurer.
d On December 22, 2003, the insurer filed a motion to compel answers to its March 10, 2003 discovery. According to the motion, the claimant never responded to its March 10, 2003 discovery requests.
On January 2, 2004, a telephone conference was held by the Court's hearing examiner with the claimant and Mr. Charles G. Adams, counsel for the petitioner, regarding both the motion to compel discovery and a motion filed by the insurer to continue the trial setting. Given that the discovery requests had been drafted by earlier counsel, that the claimant continued to object to portions of the discovery as not related to her present claim, and that some discovery requests appeared overly-broad, the hearing examiner requested Mr. Adams to delineate the discovery requests he now wanted the claimant to answer.
By letter dated January 26, 2004, the insurer requested the Court to compel the claimant to provide the following information:
a A list of her medical providers over the course of her life.
b A list of any and all insurance claims she has filed.
c Information about the her past and current employment, including (a) whom claimant has worked for; (b) in what capacity, and (c) for wha
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Montana Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|