Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`JEREMY D. RHODES,
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`Defendant.
`____________________________________)
`
`process in this case. Therefore, this Court HEREBY DENIES this motion.
`
`State Court of Fulton County
`Given the recent discovery extension, this Court finds no basis to circumvent normal discovery
`**E-FILED**
`17EV002100
`1/12/2018 10:49 AM
`LeNora Ponzo, Clerk
`Civil Division
`
`IN THE STATE COURT OF FULTON COUNTY
`STATE OF GEORGIA
`
`RODERICK K. LINZIE,
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 17EV002100
`
`TRIAL BY JURY OF TWELVE
`DEMANDED
`
`UNNAMED DEFENDANT JAMES RIVER INSURANCE COMPANY, INC.’S MOTION
`AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF A QUALIFIED PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`COMES NOW, James River Insurance Company, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as “JRIC”
`
`or “this Defendant”), and submits this Motion and Brief in Support of Qualified Protective Order,
`
`respectfully showing the Court the following:
`
`FACTS
`
` This action arises from a motor vehicle accident that occurred on June 21, 2016 between
`
`vehicles driven by Plaintiff Roderick Linzie and Defendant Jeremy Rhodes. (See, Complaint,
`
`generally.) Plaintiff alleges that Mr. Rhodes negligently operated his vehicle, causing the subject
`
`collision to occur. Id. Plaintiff further alleges that he has suffered personal injury as a result of the
`
`subject collision, including injuries to his neck, back, and shoulder. Id. Plaintiff received the full
`
`limits of Mr. Rhodes liability insurance pursuant to a Limited Release, and now seeks
`
`

`

`Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist Benefits from Unnamed Defendant James River Insurance
`
`Company. Id.
`
`Mr. Linzie has treated with several healthcare providers since the subject collision on June
`
`21, 2016, and anticipates further treatment. (See, Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant JRIC’s First
`
`Interrogatories to Plaintiff, ¶¶ 6, 20, attached hereto as Exhibit “A”). Specifically, Plaintiff has
`
`treated with medical providers at Sparlin Heatlhcare1, Ortho Sport and Spine Physicians2, and
`
`Peachtree Orthopaedics3. Id. Based upon his own testimony and the medical records received from
`
`Sparlin Healthcare, Plaintiff also treated at Sparlin Healthcare prior to the subject motor vehicle
`
`accident for injuries to his neck and back following a separate motor vehicle collision which
`
`occurred in April 2015. (Deposition of Roderick Linzie, pp. 10-13, attached hereto as Exhibit “B”).
`
`Further, Plaintiff has indicated that he anticipates undergoing two additional surgeries, one each
`
`on his neck and lower back, which will be performed by Lee Kelley at Peachtree Orthopaedics.
`
`(See, Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant JRIC’s First Interrogatories to Plaintiff, ¶¶ 6, 20, attached
`
`hereto as Exhibit “A”). Plaintiff has indicated that he will present medical records from each of
`
`these providers at the trial of this case. (See, Plaintiff’s Notice of Intent to Use Records at Trial
`
`filed August 1, 2017).
`
`To facilitate discovery, counsel for Defendants would like to meet with Plaintiff’s medical
`
`providers at Sparlin Healthcare, Ortho Sport and Spine Physicians, and Peachtree Orthopaedics
`
`informally to decide whether formal discovery is necessary. Consistent with Georgia law and
`
`HIPAA privacy rules, Defendants request the entry of a Qualified Protective Order, which would
`
`1 Edward G. Krolikowshi, D.C. and Kim P. Eubanks, M.D.
`2 Armin Oskouei, M.D., William Sutlive, M.D., Melissa Hagin, NP-C, and Joe Samuel M.D.
`3 Lee A. Kelley, M.D.
`
`2
`
`

`

`permit the use and disclosure of protected health information of Roderick Linzie, for use in this
`
`litigation alone. Defendants only seek to conduct these ex parte interviews with respect to the
`
`limited medical conditions which are at issue in this proceeding, specifically, issues and care
`
`related to Roderick Linzie’s alleged neck and back injuries and his past and future treatment related
`
`thereto. As discovery is ongoing, Defendant reserves the right to amend this Motion and seek
`
`permission from the Court to meet with additional medical providers as their relevance,
`
`importance, and identity become known through the discovery process.
`
`For the reasons stated below, JRIC respectfully requests that this Court grant this Motion
`
`for Qualified Protective Order.
`
`ARGUMENT AND CITATION OF AUTHORITY
`
`A. Ex parte Meetings Between Defense Counsel and the Treating Healthcare Providers of
`Roderick Linzie are Authorized by HIPAA and Georgia Law.
`
`The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”) permits oral
`
`and written disclosure of protected health information from a covered entity, such as a physician
`
`or other healthcare provider, in the course of a judicial proceeding in response to a court order. 45
`
`C.F.R. § 164.512(e)(1)(i). The Georgia Supreme Court has interpreted HIPAA in the context of
`
`ex parte communications between defense counsel and a plaintiff’s treating medical providers. See
`
`Moreland v. Austin, 284 Ga. 730, 670 S.E.2d 68 (2008). In Moreland, the Court recognized the
`
`longstanding practice of conducting ex parte interviews with treating physicians, stating as
`
`follows:
`
`Georgia law is clear that a plaintiff waives his right to privacy with regard to
`medical records that are relevant to a medical condition the plaintiff placed in issue
`in a civil or criminal proceeding. O. C.G.A. § 24-9-40(a); Orr v. Sievert, 162 Ga.
`App. 677 (1982). Therefore, under Georgia law, once a plaintiff puts his medical
`
`3
`
`

`

`condition in issue, defendants can seek plaintiff’s protected health information by
`formal discovery, or informally, by communicating orally with a
`plaintiff's physician.
`
`Id. at 734. In light of the procedural requirements imposed by HIPAA, the Georgia Supreme Court
`
`held that HIPAA must be satisfied before ex parte interviews with medical providers may take
`
`place, which could be accomplished either pursuant to a HIPAA-compliant medical authorization
`
`executed by Plaintiff or through a qualified protective order that prohibits the use or disclosure of
`
`the patient’s protected health information for any non-litigation purpose. Id. at 731, 734. The Court
`
`specifically referenced 45 C.F.R. § 164.512(e)(1)(v) in a footnote, which requires that a protective
`
`order (1) prohibit parties from using or disclosing the health information for any purpose other
`
`than the litigation and (2) requires the return to the covered entity or destruction of the health
`
`information, including all copies made, at the end of the litigation. See 45 C.F.R. §
`
`164.512(e)(1)(v).
`
`Subsequent to Moreland, the Supreme Court of Georgia revisited the propriety of ex parte
`
`communications between defense counsel and a plaintiff’s treating physicians. See Baker v.
`
`Wellstar Health Systems. Inc., 288 Ga. 336, 703 S.E.2d 601 (2010). In Baker, the Georgia
`
`Supreme Court held that ex parte interviews of plaintiff’s treating physicians are permitted under
`
`HIPAA and the substantive privilege extended by Georgia law to medical information, and are
`
`limited to matters relevant to plaintiff’s medical condition which is at issue in the subject
`
`proceeding. The Baker Court recognized the benefits of ex parte interviews:
`
`In proceedings in which a litigant’s medical condition is at issue, Georgia law
`generally permits ex parte communications between the litigant’s treating
`physicians and opposing counsel, under the theory that the litigant’s right to
`medical privacy as to the condition at issue has been waived.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Id. at 337. In Baker, the Georgia Supreme Court considered a Qualified Protective Order entered
`
`in a medical malpractice case that only contained the two HIPAA-required elements outlined in
`
`Moreland (which requires any protective order to prohibit parties from using or disclosing the
`
`health information for any purpose other than the litigation and requires the return to the covered
`
`entity or destruction of the health information, including all copies made, at the end of the
`
`litigation). The Georgia Supreme Court found that language contained in the order allowing the
`
`defendants to "discuss [plaintiff’s] medical conditions and any past, present, or future care or
`
`treatment with [defense] counsel," was too broad, and consequently, the Court limited the scope
`
`of the interview to "matters relevant to [plaintiff's] medical condition which [was] at issue in [the]
`
`proceeding." Id. at 338. Furthermore, the Court identified other language and items that should be
`
`included in a qualified protective order:
`
`(1) the name(s) of the health care provider(s) who may be interviewed; (2) the
`medical condition(s) at issue in the litigation regarding which the health care
`provider(s) may be interviewed; (3) the fact that the interview is at the request of
`the defendants, not the patient-plaintiff, and is for the purpose of assisting defense
`counsel in the litigation; and (4) the fact that the health care provider's participation
`in the interview is voluntary.
`
` Id. at 339. The Supreme Court of Georgia’s allowance of ex parte communications between
`
`defense counsel and a plaintiff’s treating physicians regarding “matters relevant to [a plaintiff’s]
`
`medical condition which is at issue” underscores the value of such informal interviews in the
`
`litigation process.
`
`Thus, both HIPAA and Georgia law permit a patient's treating physicians to disclose, share,
`
`divulge, use, transmit, and communicate a patient's protected health information, including oral
`
`communications. Moreover, HIPAA does not forbid defense counsel and treating physicians from
`
`engaging in ex parte communications regarding a patient's medical information. The Moreland
`
`5
`
`

`

`and Baker cases explicitly allow for such communications in accordance with the provisions of
`
`HIPAA. Therefore, this Defendant has an affirmative legal right to communicate with Plaintiff
`
`Roderick Linzie’s treating healthcare providers outside the presence of Plaintiff’s counsel and
`
`should be allowed to meet with such healthcare providers in this case.
`
`In light of the Georgia Supreme Court’s holdings in the Moreland and Baker cases, this
`
`Defendant respectfully requests that this Court enter a Qualified Protective Order allowing defense
`
`counsel to meet independently with Roderick Linzie’s treating physicians and other healthcare
`
`providers without the need for notice to Plaintiffs and outside the presence of Plaintiffs’ counsel
`
`to ensure that all parties to this litigation have equal access to potential witnesses and evidence. A
`
`proposed Qualified Protective Order is attached hereto as “Exhibit C.” The proposed Qualified
`
`Protective Order is based on a Qualified Protective Order entered by Your Honor, Judge Jay Roth,
`
`in the State Court of Fulton County on April 25, 2011, which is attached hereto as “Exhibit D.”
`
`This Order, as well as the proposed Order attached as “Exhibit C," incorporates the two HIPAA-
`
`required elements and the four Baker elements, thus providing meaningful specificity and
`
`limitations on the medical providers that may be interviewed, as well as the scope of the
`
`information that may be discussed during any such interview. Specifically, JRIC seeks to
`
`interview Roderick Linzie’s treating healthcare providers only with respect to the medical
`
`conditions which are at issue in the case and under the narrow parameters expressed in the
`
`proposed Order submitted herewith.
`
`B.
`
`Ex Parte Interviews Should Be Allowed Because Plaintiff Roderick Linzie Has Consented
`To The Release Of Information In The Possession Of His Treating Healthcare Providers.
`
`The Georgia Civil Practice Act provides for statutory discovery procedures whereby parties
`
`to litigation may obtain copies of pertinent medical records. See O.C.G.A. § 9-11-34(c). JRIC
`
`6
`
`

`

`served Plaintiff Roderick Linzie’s healthcare providers with Rule 34(c) requests for the production
`
`of their medical records, and Plaintiff Roderick Linzie has not objected to any of the JRIC’s
`
`requests. Roderick Linzie’s treating healthcare providers produced or are producing copies of his
`
`medical records, and those medical records are or will be in the possession of JRIC’s counsel.
`
`In seeking the right to conduct ex parte interviews with Plaintiff Roderick Linzie’s
`
`healthcare providers, JRIC merely seeks to discuss the information contained within the healthcare
`
`provider’s medical records. This information has already been produced by Plaintiff Roderick
`
`Linzie’s healthcare providers as authorized by Plaintiff. Due to the law set forth in the Baker case
`
`and the fact that Plaintiff has voiced no objection to JRIC obtaining the medical records from
`
`Roderick Linzie’s healthcare providers, a Qualified Protective Order is appropriate.
`
`C.
`
`This Defendant’s Inability To Conduct Ex Parte Meetings With Treating Healthcare
`Providers Deprives Them Of Equal Access To Relevant Information.
`
`If JRIC is denied the opportunity to conduct ex parte meetings with treating healthcare
`
`providers, JRIC will be placed on unequal footing with the Plaintiff in this case. JRIC will not
`
`have the opportunity to discover the information necessary to prepare a defense or evaluate this
`
`case for settlement. The broad purpose of discovery rules under the Georgia Civil Practice Act is
`
`to enable the parties to prepare for trial so that each party will know the issues and be fully prepared
`
`on the facts. Int’l Harvester Co. v. Cunningham, 245 Ga. App. 736, 738 (2000). Discovery should
`
`ensure that one party is not placed at a disadvantage simply because it does not have custody of
`
`certain evidence or because it is diligent and examines evidence early in the litigation. Id. at 739.
`
`After all, the goal of discovery is the fair resolution of legal disputes, “to remove the potential for
`
`secrecy and hiding of material.” Id. (citing Hanna Creative Enters. v. Alterman Foods, 156 Ga.
`
`App. 376, 378 (1980)).
`
`7
`
`

`

`In this case, JRIC should be allowed to communicate with Plaintiff Roderick Linzie’s
`
`treating healthcare providers. These meetings are essential to JRIC’s understanding of this case.
`
`To restrict JRIC’s access to such treating healthcare providers creates an un-level playing field
`
`upon which Plaintiff has significantly more information available to build a case.
`
`Allowing Plaintiff’s counsel to meet with Roderick Linzie’s treating healthcare providers
`
`while barring defense counsel from meeting with them is not in line with the purpose of discovery
`
`as outlined by the Georgia Court of Appeals in Cunningham, supra. This outcome would create a
`
`lack of information for JRIC and would promote an atmosphere of secrecy throughout the
`
`litigation. Moreover, forbidding equal access
`
`to relevant
`
`information
`
`is completely
`
`counterintuitive to the discovery process.
`
`This Court should allow JRIC to meet with Roderick Linzie’s treating healthcare providers
`
`to promote fairness and information sharing among the parties. This Court has wide latitude in
`
`determining the scope and method of discovery. Travis Meat & Seafood Co., Inc. v. Ashworth,
`
`127 Ga. App. 284, 285 (1972). It is within the trial court’s sound legal discretion to determine the
`
`permissible extent of discovery, keeping in mind that the discovery procedure is to be construed
`
`liberally in favor of supplying a party with the facts. Tenet Healthcare Corp. v. La. Forum Corp.,
`
`273 Ga. 206, 210 (2000).
`
`Under general discovery rules applicable to all parties, not only must a trial court determine
`
`whether the requested discovery is relevant and material, but when parties seek discovery of
`
`unprivileged but sensitive materials, the trial court must balance the requesting party’s specific
`
`need for the material against the harm that would result by its disclosure. Atlanta Journal-
`
`Constitution v. Jewell, 251 Ga. App. 808, 812 (2001). Discovery should not be prohibited where
`
`8
`
`

`

`the effect is to frustrate that purpose and prevent legitimate discovery. Cunningham, 245 Ga. App.
`
`at 739. When parties contend that discovery requests unduly invade their privacy, suitable
`
`protective orders insuring confidentiality may be sought, but such orders are intended to be
`
`protective, not prohibitive. McGinn v. McGinn, 273 Ga. 292, 293 (2001). The Georgia Civil
`
`Practice Act provides that a court, “for good cause shown, may make any order which justice
`
`requires to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue
`
`burden.” Waldrip v. Head, 272 Ga. 572, 579-80 (2000) (citing O.C.G.A. § 9-11-26(c)). The order
`
`may deny discovery, limit its scope to certain matters, or specify the terms and conditions under
`
`which it may be had. Id. at 580.
`
`Here, Plaintiff Roderick Linzie’s medical conditions were placed at issue by the filing of a
`
`lawsuit alleging damages for personal injury. This Court should work to promote the exchange of
`
`that information in an effort to satisfy the basic principles of discovery. Implementing a Qualified
`
`Protective Order under which the parties may proceed with discovery will protect Roderick Linzie
`
`while also ensuring fairness during the discovery process. Currently, Plaintiff has unilateral access
`
`to all of Plaintiff Roderick Linzie’s treating healthcare providers. This Defendant, on the other
`
`hand, is defending a case involving allegations of negligence and injuries without being able to
`
`meet with healthcare providers involved in the care of such alleged injuries. JRIC should have
`
`equal access to treating healthcare providers as that afforded to the Plaintiff. This result will not
`
`advantage either party. Rather, it will allow both parties to complete discovery on a level playing
`
`field.
`
`This Defendant respectfully requests that this Court consider and enter the proposed
`
`Qualified Protective Order. The entry of this Order will comply in all regards with both current
`
`Georgia law and federal law. This Order will also allow both Plaintiff and defense counsel equal
`
`9
`
`

`

`access to treating healthcare providers and will comply with the longstanding Georgia rules of
`
`discovery.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, JRIC respectfully requests that this Court grant their Motion for
`
`a Qualified Protective Order, granting this Defendant’s counsel permission to conduct an ex parte
`
`interview with Plaintiff Roderick Linzie’s treating physicians to discuss medical conditions that
`
`he has placed in issue in this case.
`
`This 30th day of November, 2017.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`WEATHINGTON McGREW, P.C.
`
`By:
`
`/s/ Samuel E. Britt, III
`WAYNE D. MCGREW, III
`Georgia Bar No. 493216
`SAMUEL E. BRITT, III
`Georgia Bar No. 772418
`Attorneys for Unnamed Defendant
`JAMES RIVER INSURANCE COMPANY
`
`191 Peachtree Street, N.E.
`Suite 3900
`Atlanta, Georgia 30303
`404-524-1600 (Phone)
`404-524-1610 (Fax)
`
`10
`
`

`

`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that I have this day served a copy of the within and foregoing pleading
`
`upon all parties to this matter via Odyssey E-file and by depositing a true copy of same in the U.S.
`
`Mail, proper postage prepaid, addressed to counsel of record as follows:
`
`Jonathan P. Hayes
`Jared M. Lima
`Goldstein & Hayes, P.C.
`One Buckhead Plaza
`3060 Peachtree Road NW, Suite 1000
`Atlanta, Georgia 30305
`
`Alaina S. Howard
`Law Office of Natalie M. Smith
`2970 Clarimont Road NE, Suite 600
`Brookhaven, Georgia 30329
`
`This 30th day of November, 2017.
`
`/s/ Samuel E. Britt, III
`WAYNE D. MCGREW, III
`Georgia Bar No. 493216
`SAMUEL E. BRITT, III
`Georgia Bar No. 772418
`Attorneys for Unnamed Defendant
`JAMES RIVER INSURANCE COMPANY
`
`191 Peachtree Street, N.E.
`Suite 3900
`Atlanta, Georgia 30303
`404-524-1600 (Phone)
`
`11
`
`

`

`IN THE STATE COURT OF FULTON COUNTY
`STATE OF GEORGIA
`
`CIVIL ACTION
`FILE NUMBER: 17EV002100
`
`) )
`
`) )
`
`)
`
`)
`
`) J
`
`RODERICK K. LINZIE,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`V.
`
`JEREMY D. RHODES,
`
`)
`
`Defendant.
`JAMES RIVER INSURANCE COMPANY’S FIRST INTERROGATORIES AND
`REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO PLAINTIFF
`COMES NOW, Roderick K. Linzie, Plaintiff in the above—styled action, and
`hereby responds to James River Insurance Company’s First Interrogatories and
`Requests for Production of Documents by attaching his Verification and as follows:
`INTERROGATORIES
`
`l.
`Please state your full name, marital status (and spouse’s full name), your social
`security number, date of birth, and present street address.
`RESPONSE:
`Plaintiff objects to the identification 0f his date of birth and Social Security
`number in a public record, but will provide the information directly to counsel.
`Subject to and without waiving said objections, Plaintiff responds as follows:
`Roderick K. Linzie, Ph.D.;
`
`Single;
`2421 Muirfield Place, College Park, Georgia 30337.
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`

`

`2.
`What are the names, address, home telephone numbers, places of employment,
`and present whereabouts of all witnesses known to you Who saw or claim they saw all
`0r any part of the occurrence complained of in this action?
`RESPONSE:
`
`Plaintiff objects to this interrogatory to the extent it is overly broad. Subject to
`and Without waiving said objection, Plaintiff responds as follows:
`Plaintiff Roderick Linzie;
`Defendant Jeremy D. Rhodes;
`Gari Clifford, 512 Clairemont Avenue, Decatur, Georgia 30030, (404) 712—0163;
`Tina G. Goldberg, (310) 923—3461;
`Raymon Voltaire, 58 Macland Circle, Bremen, Georgia 30110, (470) 755—9268;
`
`and
`
`Michael Jackson, 1569 Phoenix Boulevard, College Park, Georgia 30349, (334)
`758—3749.
`Plaintiff reserves the right t0 supplement this response as deemed necessary up
`t0 and including the time of trial.
`
`3.
`What are
`the names, addresses, home telephone numbers,
`places
`of
`employment, and present whereabouts 0f all witnesses known to you Who arrived at
`the scene of the occurrence complained of in this action immediately or shortly after
`its occurrence?
`RESPONSE:
`Plaintiff objects to this interrogatory to the extent it is overly broad. Subject to
`and Without waiving said objection, Plaintiff responds as follows:
`
`

`

`Huntzinger and Operator P.
`College Park Police
`Braggs,
`Officer
`J.
`L.
`Department, 3717 College Street, College Park, Georgia 30337; and
`Various employees/representatives of Moody’s Wrecker Service, 3845 Conley
`Street, Atlanta, Georgia 30337, (404) 762—1632.
`Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement this response as deemed necessary up
`t0 and including the time of trial.
`
`4.
`addresses, home telephone numbers, places
`What are
`the names,
`of
`employment, and present whereabouts 0f all persons having knowledge of relevant
`information, facts, or Circumstances in this case, known to you?
`RESPONSE:
`Plaintiff objects t0 this interrogatory to the extent it is overly broad. Subject to
`and without waiving said objection, Plaintiff refers Defendant to Plaintiff’s responses to
`Interrogatory numbers 2 and 3 and responds additionally as follows:
`Insurance Company
`Moore and Nicole
`Lisa
`Torch,
`Victoria
`Select
`J.
`(“Nationwide”), l Nationwide Gateway, Department 52272, Des Moines, Iowa 50391—
`1913, (800) 421—3535;
`LeAnne Adams, Traci Wright, Brian Bannon, and Richard Krueger, James River
`Insurance Company, P.O. Box 27648, Richmond, Virginia 23261, (804) 289—2969;
`Amy Morris, Melissa Butler, Cori Poole, and Katie (last name unknown),
`Government Employees Insurance Company (“GEICO”), One Geico Center, Macon,
`Georgia 31296, (800) 841—8842;
`Ashley Whitten, Custard Insurance Adjusters, Inc., 3135 Avalon Ridge Place,
`Suite 200, Norcross, Georgia 30071, (678) 304—3425;
`
`

`

`T. Suggs, Renee Brown, and Lisa (last name unknown), European Collision
`Repair, 1934 Highway 85 N, Jonesboro, Georgia 30238, (678) 817—4722;
`D. Campbell, owner of Bimmer—Benz Auto Service, 4787 Clark Howell Highway,
`Suite 10, Atlanta, Georgia 30349, (404) 209—0864;
`Various employees/representatives 0f Co—Part, 761 Clark Drive, Ellenwood,
`Georgia 30294, (770) 389—1768;
`Dr. Maurice Wheeler, Plaintiff’s friend;
`Dr. Marty Cummings, Plaintiff’s co—worker;
`Rev. Carrie F‘. Linzie, Plaintiff’s mother;
`Dr. Angela Williams, Plaintiff’s manager;
`Plaintiff’s treating physicians, therapists and their staff members should have
`some knowledge about the subject incident and Plaintiff’s injuries;
`Plaintiff believes additional family members, co—W0rkers, friends and neighbors
`may have knowledge regarding the subject incident and/or his damages; and
`Plaintiff’s attorneys, their staff members and investigators.
`Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement this response as deemed necessary up
`to and including the time of trial.
`
`5.
`Please state the names, addresses, and telephone number of any adult relatives
`that you have who live in Fulton County, Georgia.
`RESPONSE:
`Plaintiff objects t0 this interrogatory as seeking irrelevant information not
`reasonably calculated t0 lead t0 the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and
`without waiving said objection, Plaintiff responds as follows:
`Not applicable.
`
`

`

`6.
`Do you claim that you suffered physical injuries as a result of the incident
`If so, please describe the nature of each injury and
`described in the Complaint?
`include in your response the date the injury was discovered.
`RESPONSE:
`Plaintiff objects to this interrogatory as being vague, overly broad and unduly
`burdensome.
`Plaintiff further objects to the extent that this interrogatory seeks an
`Subject to and Without waiving said objections, Plaintiff
`expert medical opinion.
`
`responds as follows:
`As a result of the subject collision, Plaintiff’s injuries include radiating neck
`pain, bilateral shoulder pain, left upper extremity pain, back pain, left leg pain, right
`foot/ankle pain, and headaches. MRIS revealed cervical disc protrusions at multiple
`levels, most prominently at C4—5 and C5—6, and lumbar disc herniations at L4—5 and
`Lee Kelley, MD. with Peachtree
`LS—Sl With nerve root impingement or irritation.
`Orthopaedic Clinic opined a C4——T1 anterior cervical discectomy and fusion is
`necessary to relieve Plaintiff’s ongoing neck symptomatologr and a future L4—Sl
`lumbar fusion may also be necessary to address Plaintiff’s ongoing back and lower
`Plaintiff continues to treat and the complete extent of his
`extremity symptoms.
`treatment and injuries is to be determined.
`Plaintiff refers Defendant to Plaintiff’s medical records and medical billing
`statements in his possession attached hereto as POOOOlZ—P00017O for specific
`treatment dates, number 0f Visits and a complete description 0f each treatment and/or
`services provided and the charges associated with each.
`Plaintiff reserves right t0 supplement this response as deemed necessary up to
`and including the time of trial.
`
`

`

`7.
`Do you contend that you suffered bodily injury requiring medical attention and
`have incurred past medical expenses and will continue to incur future medical
`expenses as a result of the incident described in Plaintiffs Complaint? If so, please
`describe these bodily injuries and medical expenses in reasonable detail.
`RESPONSE:
`Plaintiff objects to this interrogatory as being vague, overly broad and unduly
`burdensome.
`Plaintiff further objects to the extent that this interrogatory seeks an
`Subject to and without waiving said objections, Plaintiff
`expert medical opinion.
`
`responds as follows:
`Plaintiff refers Defendant to Plaintiff’s response to Interrogatory number 6 for a
`description of his bodily injuries and to Interrogatory number lO for an itemization of
`his medical expenses.
`
`8.
`Do you contend that you incurred a loss of wages and loss of earning capacity
`as a result of the incident described in Plaintiffs Complaint? If so, please describe this
`loss of wages and loss of earning capacity in reasonable detail and identify and/or
`produce any documents that Will be used at trial to prove this claim.
`Please also
`state the dates that you were unable to work because of your injuries and Whether you
`have received any payment from any source on account of any such loss of time from
`work or loss of earnings.
`If you have received such payments, please provide the
`amount, source, and frequency of the payments.
`RESPONSE:
`Plaintiff sustained an actual wage loss and a diminished capacity to labor.
`Plaintiff was unable to work and/or work at full capacity following the incident and
`
`

`

`The actual amount of
`sustained a loss of wages and/or income as a result.
`wage/income loss has not yet been determined and Plaintiff Will supplement this
`response at a later date.
`Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement this response as deemed necessary up
`to and including the time of trial.
`
`9.
`D0 you contend that you have sustained pain, suffering, and mental anguish as
`a result of the incident described in Plaintiffs Complaint? If so, please describe this
`pain, suffering, and mental anguish in reasonable detail.
`RESPONSE:
`Plaintiff objects to this interrogatory as being vague, overly broad and unduly
`burdensome.
`Plaintiff further objects to the extent that this interrogatory seeks an
`expert medical opinion and privileged psychological/psychiatric information.
`to and Without waiving said objections, Plaintiff responds as follows:
`Plaintiff refers Defendant to Plaintiff’s response to Interrogatory number 7.
`
`Subject
`
`10.
`Itemize all expenses and special damages which you Claim resulted from the
`incident Which is the subject matter of this action, including, but not limited to,
`property damage, medical and hospital expenses and loss
`
`of earnings/earning
`
`capacity.
`RESPONSE:
`Medical Expenses in Plaintiff’s possession to date:
`06/23/ 16—09/ 19/ 16
`Sparlin Healthcare
`Ortho Sport 85 Spine Physicians 07/ 1 1/ 16—05/24/ 17
`06/15/17—
`
`3,980.00
`
`$
`$103,658.01
`
`$
`
`

`

`American Health Imaging
`Benchmark Physical Therapy
`Elite Radiology of Georgia
`
`Peachtree Orthopaedic Clinic
`Wal-Mart Pharmacy
`Kroger Pharmacy
`Publix Pharmacy
`
`Total:
`
`07/ 13/ 16
`12/27/ 16—03/06/ 17
`04/ 19/ 17
`05/01/17
`06/25/ 16—10/06/ 16
`—
`—
`
`Anticipated Future Medical Expenses:
`Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion C4—T1
`Posterior Lumbar Discectomy and Fusion L4—S1
`
`4,595.00
`
`3,644.00
`
`704.00
`
`28.00
`
`$
`
`$
`
`$
`
`$
`
`$
`
`$
`
`$
`$116,609.01
`
`$130,428.56
`
`$163,074.00
`
`$293,502.56
`Total:
`Total Past and Anticipated Future Medical Expenses:
`$410,111.57
`Plaintiff also sustained an actual wage loss and a diminished capacity to labor
`and refers Defendant to Plaintiff’s response to Interrogétory number 8 for additional
`information.
`Plaintiff’s property damage claim has been resolved.
`Plaintiff continues to treat, is not in possession of all medical records and/or
`billing statements, and Will supplement this response upon receipt from the providers.
`Plaintiff reserves right to supplement this response as deemed necessary up to
`and including the time 0f trial.
`
`1 1.
`To your knowledge, information, or belief, is there any documentary or other
`tangible evidence not previously listed Which you contend support your allegations of
`liability, causation, or damages? If so, please describe each item of tangible evidence
`
`

`

`giving the nature and form, the subject or contents, and the present location and
`name 0f the person having custody and control of each such item.
`RESPONSE:
`See POOOOOl—P000277.
`Plaintiff is also producing a copy of the 911 audio recording related to the
`subject collision on the enclosed disc.
`Plaintiff is in possession of copies of radiology films of Plaintiff (or CD
`duplicates) and will make these available to Defendant at a mutually agreeable date
`and time.
`
`Plaintiff continues to treat, is not in possession of all medical records and/or
`medical billing statements, and will supplement this response upon receipt from the
`
`providers.
`Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement this response as deemed necessary up
`to and including the time of trial.
`
`12.
`To your knowledge, information or belief, are there any photographs or
`drawings of the scene of the incident, of any person involved in the incident, 0r of any
`If so, describe each such photograph or
`vehicle involved in the alleged incident?
`drawing, state the approximate date made, identify the subject, the name of the
`person making the photograph 0r drawing, and give the present location and name of
`the person having custody and control thereof.
`RESPONSE:
`Plaintiff objects t0 this interrogatory to the extent it seeks information which is
`protected by the work product privilege, trial preparation and in anticipation of
`
`

`

`litigation.
`
`Subject to and Without waiving said objections, Plaintiff responds as
`
`follows:
`See the collision report attached hereto as POOOOO 1—POOOOOS.
`See photographs attached hereto as POOOl71—P000210.
`See Plaintiff’s driver’s license attached hereto as P000276—P000277.
`of Plaintiff (or CD
`Plaintiff is in possession of copies of radio