Wisniewski v. Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company et al

Filing 28

ORDER RE FINAL ISSUE ON DISCOVERY re 27 Supplemental Discovery Letter Brief filed by Michael Wisniewski. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on October 10, 2014. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/10/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

MICHAEL WISNIEWSKI,

) Case No. 3:14-CV-01674-JST
)
Plaintiff,
) (PROPOSED) ORDER RE FINAL ISSUE
) ON DISCOVERY
v.
)
)
HARTFORD LIFE AND ACCIDENT
)
INSURANCE COMPANY; WIND RIVER )
SYSTEMS, INC. WELFARE BENEFIT )
PLAN,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)

18
19
20
21
22
23

FOR GOOD CAUSE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that additional discovery in this ERISA
action shall proceed based on Plaintiff Michael Wisniewski and Defendant Hartford Life and
Accident Insurance Company’s agreement reached in their meet and confer sessions.
Specifically, the parties have indicated that they have agreed to the following:
That Plaintiff Wisniewski can issue a narrowly limited subpoena to Reliable Review

24

Services and that this discovery is being allowed under an abuse of discretion standard and that

25

the request only pertains to Wisniewski's claim. The subpoena will be limited to the

26

followings documents:

27
28

1.

The order from Hartford to RRS for a co-morbid evaluation by specialists in

pain management and rheumatology.
(PROPOSED) ORDER RE FINAL ISSUE ON DISCOVERY
CASE NO. 4:14-CV-01674-JST

1
2

2.

RRS' letters to Drs. Payne and Clark confirming that they have been selected to

review the case for Wisniewski, stating when the case report is due back to RRS, explaining

3

how many minutes they are each allowed to review the case, stating that they are to review the

4

case from their specialty perspective only, and that there will be also a review by another

5

specialist.

6

3.

The templates RRS provides to each reviewing doctor: identifying attending

7

providers to be contacted; asking for a complete clinical history evaluation; asking for a

8

summary of the reviewing doctor's discussion with the attending provider; providing the

9

definition of disability; stating the current disabling conditions as provided by Hartford; asking

10

a series of questions; and concluding "Please provide an assessment and explain your rationale,

11

and then having four attestation including I have used evidence based criterion in support by

12

final decision" and "Total minutes reviewed."

13

4.

The completed information on the templates by each doctor.

14

5.

The bill or bills sent by RRS for the co-morbid report of Drs. Clark and Payne.

15

6.

The parties agreed that defense counsel can review the subpoena before it is

16

issued and served.

24

ER

N

F
D IS T IC T O
R

25
26
27
28

R NIA

FO

. Ti ga r

LI

nS
J u d ge J o

H

23

RT

22

HON. JON S. TIGAR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

NO

21

DERED

O OR
IT IS S

A

20

UNIT
ED

19

DATED: October 10, 2014

S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA

RT
U
O

18

S

17

2
(PROPOSED) ORDER RE FINAL ISSUE ON DISCOVERY
CASE NO. 4:14-CV-01674-JST

C