Dpmlgsprla, LLC Versus Doctor's Advantage, Inc.
This text of Dpmlgsprla, LLC Versus Doctor's Advantage, Inc. (Dpmlgsprla, LLC Versus Doctor's Advantage, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Louisiana Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
DPMLGSPRLA, LLC NO. 25-C-34
VERSUS FIFTH CIRCUIT
DOCTOR'S ADVANTAGE, INC. COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF LOUISIANA
February 20, 2025
Morgan Naquin Deputy Clerk
IN RE DPMLGSPRLA, LLC
APPLYING FOR SUPERVISORY WRIT FROM THE TWENTY-FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF LOUISIANA, DIRECTED TO THE HONORABLE E. ADRIAN ADAMS, DIVISION "G", NUMBER 831-258
Panel composed of Judges Susan M. Chehardy, Stephen J. Windhorst, and Scott U. Schlegel
WRIT DENIED
On August 1, 2016, plaintiff-relator, DPMLGSPRLA, LLC, a medical
practice specializing in podiatry, and defendant-respondent, Doctor’s Advantage,
Inc. (“DA”), executed a contract for medical coding/billing services. Plaintiff
alleges that after initially performing satisfactorily, DA “negligently and
fraudulently mismanaged numerous duties and obligations it was required to
perform” under the contract. More specifically, plaintiff alleged that DA “failed to
input and/or correct a multitude of medical claim and billing codes and failed to
use the correct systems, which allegedly deprived Plaintiff of substantial payment
and caus[ed] loss of income.”
During discovery, DA asked plaintiff for: “Any document which you
contend supports your claim for the damages you are seeking in this matter” in its
Request for Production of Documents No. 1. Plaintiff’s response to DA’s request
stated: “Please see the produced boxes, tax returns, spreadsheets, and emails.”
25-C-34 According to DA, plaintiff produced almost 21,000 loose pages of documents,
many of which reference data collected and maintained in plaintiff’s TRAKnet
and/or Trizetto systems, but that plaintiff refused to produce the requested
TRAKnet and Trizetto data itself, as confirmed by plaintiff’s counsel in September
2024.1
DA filed a motion to compel discovery responses, arguing that plaintiff’s
complete billing data is not only relevant but also crucial to its defense, and the
information cannot be obtained without access to plaintiff’s TRAKnet/Trizetto
systems. In support of its motion to compel, DA cited Moss v. State, 05-1963 (La.
4/4/06), 925 So.2d 1185, a case in which the Supreme Court determined that La.
R.S. 13:3715.1 authorizes a court to compel the disclosure of privileged medical
information after a contradictory hearing, if disclosure is necessary to promote the
interests of justice, even in the absence of one of the statutory exceptions
enumerated in La. C.E. art. 510 (B)(2).2
In opposition, plaintiff argued that DA had access to all of the necessary
documents through those already produced in response to the discovery requests.
Further, plaintiff contended that DA had access to both the TRAKnet and Trizetto
systems when it was working for plaintiff, and that DA maintained a backup
system during that time. Plaintiff also contended that neither system has a date-set
administrative lock to limit DA’s access exclusively to the term of the contract
between the parties. Further, plaintiff argued that all of the error reports,
explanations of benefits, and documentation of rejections were already submitted.
Finally, plaintiff argued that the data sought is private information that belongs to
1 According to plaintiff, the Trizetto system managed the medical coding claims and identified claim errors in order to correct the errors before submitting a claim for processing. TRAKnet managed the billing for reimbursement of medical treatment claims from insurers and other payors. 2 La. C.E. art. 510 (B)(2) provides a number of exceptions to the general rule that a patient has a privilege to refuse to disclose, and to prevent another person from disclosing, a confidential communication made for the purpose of receiving health care. 2 its patients, not to plaintiff. Plaintiff claimed that DA “never asked or informed any
of the nonparty patients” that it was seeking their information, nor did it acquire
waivers for production of that information. Therefore, plaintiff argued, the trial
court could not order production of the information.
The trial court granted DA’s motion to compel, ordering plaintiff to produce
the documents but imposing certain restrictions and protections. Specifically, the
court’s judgment ordered plaintiff to “fully produce documents responsive to
Request for Production of Documents No. 1,” but that the documents “shall be
limited to medical coding, claims, and billing information contained in the
TRAKnet and Trizetto systems during the 2016-2020 term of the Contract” (all
emphasis in original). The trial court’s judgment stated that plaintiff “shall not be
required to disclose any documents and/or information to [DA] regarding
individuals that became patients after the termination of the Contract between the
parties, or after October 2020” (emphasis in original). Finally, the trial court’s
judgment indicated that the documents “shall be produced according to a
Protective Order,” and that they “shall be organized and labeled.” (Emphasis in
original).
Plaintiff now seeks review of that ruling, arguing that there are adverse
public policy implications if the trial court’s judgment—requiring disclosure of
certain patient information “without any showing of defendant’s efforts to inform”
the patients; in violation of the doctor-patient privilege; and without DA having to
show that it attempted to gain this information from its own sources—is allowed to
stand.
We disagree with plaintiff’s argument. First, the trial court ordered the
information to be produced subject to a protective order, and prohibits any
unnecessary disclosure of non-party patients’ records. Second, the trial court’s
judgment and reasons for judgment reveal that after conducting a contradictory
3 hearing, its ruling was sufficiently tailored to produce the information requested.
The Louisiana Supreme Court stated:
[T]he legislature has entrusted the courts with the duty of determining, in the context of a contradictory hearing, on a case by case basis, according to the unique facts presented, whether disclosure of a non-party’s otherwise privileged medical information is “proper” in a particular case in the absence of consent or a waiver. This determination is not … confined solely to ascertaining whether a statutory exception to the privilege exists.
Moss, 925 So.2d at 1199-1200. Here, DA requested applicable billing and coding
information to address a contractual dispute between the parties, not to scrutinize a
particular individual’s medical records. After a contradictory hearing, the trial
court was evidently satisfied that DA met its burden of showing relevance and
need.
Third, on the showing made, we are unable to determine whether the
documents that plaintiff already produced satisfied Request for Production No. 1,
as plaintiff argues.
For all of these reasons, and because a trial court is accorded vast discretion
in matters of discovery, on the showing made, we cannot say the trial court abused
its discretion. Accordingly, plaintiff’s writ application is denied.
Gretna, Louisiana, this 20th day of February, 2025.
SMC SJW SUS
4 SUSAN M. CHEHARDY CURTIS B. PURSELL
CHIEF JUDGE CLERK OF COURT
SUSAN S. BUCHHOLZ FREDERICKA H. WICKER CHIEF DEPUTY CLERK JUDE G. GRAVOIS MARC E. JOHNSON STEPHEN J. WINDHORST LINDA M. WISEMAN JOHN J. MOLAISON, JR. FIRST DEPUTY CLERK SCOTT U. SCHLEGEL TIMOTHY S. MARCEL FIFTH CIRCUIT MELISSA C.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Dpmlgsprla, LLC Versus Doctor's Advantage, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dpmlgsprla-llc-versus-doctors-advantage-inc-lactapp-2025.