Hertz v. Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company et al

Filing 24

MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS - Motion Hearing Re: Plaintiff's 16 Motion for Leave to Conduct Limited Discovery Into the Nature, Extent and Affect of Hartford's Conflict of Interest held on 10/9/2012 before Magistrate Judge Robert A. McQuaid, J r. Crtrm Administrator: Paris Rich; Plaintiff's Counsel: Patrick Leverty, Jess Rinehart and Vernon Leverty; Defendant's Counsel: Keith Weaver; Court FTR #: 1:27 PM to 2:36 PM; Courtroom: 4; SEE ATTACHED MINUTES AND ORDERS. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - PR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
RENO, NEVADA

BARBARA HERTZ,
Plaintiff,
vs.
HARTFORD LIFE AND ACCIDENT
INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant.

PROCEEDINGS:

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
/

3:12-cv-00141-LRH-RAM

MINUTES OF COURT

October 9, 2012

Motion Hearing Re: Plaintiff’s [16] Motion for Leave to Conduct
Limited Discovery Into the Nature, Extent and Affect of Hartford’s
Conflict of Interest

PRESENT:
THE HONORABLE ROBERT A. McQUAID, JR., U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Deputy Clerk: Paris Rich

FTR Recording: 1:27 p.m. to 2:36 p.m.

Plaintiff’s Counsel: Patrick Leverty, Esq., Jess Rinehart, Esq. and Vernon Leverty, Esq.
Defendant’s Counsel: Keith Weaver, Esq.
At 1:27 p.m., the Court convenes in Reno Courtroom 4.
Patrick Leverty, Esq., Jess Rinehart, Esq. and Vernon Leverty, Esq. are present on behalf of
the Plaintiff Barbara Hertz.
Keith Weaver, Esq. is present on behalf of the Defendant Hartford Life and Accident
Insurance Company.
The Court recites matter on calendar and inquires of Mr. Weaver whether there is a dispute of
a conflict, or at least a potential conflict, in this matter. Mr. Weaver agrees there is the
potential of a conflict as Hartford was the funding source and the claims administrator.
The Court proceeds and hears arguments from Mr. Patrick Leverty and Mr. Weaver as to
specific requests for production of documents and interrogatories set forth in [16] Motion.
The Court recites findings and conclusions.

HERTZ v. HARTFORD
October 9, 2012
3:12-cv-00141-LRH-RAM
Page 2 of 4
______________________________________________________________________________
IT IS ORDERED, as to Requests for Production Paragraphs (1) and (2), [16]
Motion is GRANTED in part as follows:
(1)

For the periods of 4/2009, 7/2011 and 1/2012, produce a complete
copy of HARTFORD’s claim and procedural manuals, guidelines,
bulletins, and memoranda, describing or pertaining to the handling
of Long Term Disability claims.

(2)

For the periods of 4/2009, 7/2011 and 1/2012, produce a complete
copy of HARTFORD’s claim and procedural manuals, guidelines,
bulletins, and memoranda, describing or pertaining to the handling
of disability claims involving Cervical and/or Lumbar Degenerative
Disc Disease.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, as to Requests for Production Paragraphs (3) and
(4), [16] Motion is DENIED as moot.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, as to Interrogatory Paragraphs (1) and (2), [16]
Motion is GRANTED as follows:
(1)

With regard to claims reviewed by Dr. Rim for HARTFORD,
IDENTIFY the following:
a.
b.
c.

(2)

the number of claims reviewed in the years 2009, 2010, 2011
and 2012;
the number of claims in which Dr. Rim found the claimant
totally disabled in 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012; and
the number of claims in which HARTFORD found or
determined that the claimant was totally disabled after a
review performed by Dr. Rim in 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012.

With regard to claims reviewed by MLS Group of Companies for
HARTFORD, IDENTIFY the following:
a.
b.

c.

the number of claims reviewed in the years 2009, 2010, 2011
and 2012;
the number of claims in which MLS Group of Companies
found the claimant totally disabled in 2009, 2010, 2011 and
2012; and
the number of claims in which HARTFORD found or
determined that the claimant was totally disabled after a
review performed by MLS Group of Companies in 2009,
2010, 2011 and 2012.

HERTZ v. HARTFORD
October 9, 2012
3:12-cv-00141-LRH-RAM
Page 3 of 4
______________________________________________________________________________
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, as to Requests for Production Paragraphs (5), (6),
(7) and (8), [16] Motion is GRANTED in part as follows:
(5)

From January 1, 2009 to the present, produce all employment
agreements and/or compensation agreements between HARTFORD
to Dr. Rim.

(6)

From January 1, 2009 to the present, produce all employment
agreements and/or compensation agreements between HARTFORD
to MLS Group of Companies.

(7)

For all times relevant to HERTZ’s claim, produce all
communications between HARTFORD and Dr. Rim, and the MLS
Group of Companies regarding the review of HERTZ’s claim.

(8)

For all times relevant to HERTZ’s claim, produce all
communications between HARTFORD and the MLS Group of
Companies regarding the review of HERTZ’s claim.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, as to Requests for Production Paragraphs (9) and
(10), [16] Motion is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, as to Pages 8 and 9, Interrogatory Paragraphs (3)
and (4), [16] Motion is GRANTED as follows:
(3)

With regard to Dr. Rim, IDENTIFY the following:
a.
b.
c.
d.

(4)

how Dr. Rim is compensated for reviewing a claim file for
HARTFORD;
the total amounts paid to Dr. Rim by HARTFORD in 2009,
2010, 2011 and 2012;
the percentage of total salary provided by HARTFORD; and
the total amount paid to Dr. Rim by HARTFORD for
reviewing PLAINTIFF’s claim.

With regard to MLS Group of Companies, IDENTIFY the following:
a.
b.
c.
d.

how MLS Group of Companies is compensated for reviewing
a claim file for HARTFORD;
the total amount paid to MLS Group of Companies by
HARTFORD in 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012;
the percentage of total salary provided by HARTFORD; and
the total amount paid to MLS Group of Companies by
HARTFORD for reviewing PLAINTIFF’s claim.

HERTZ v. HARTFORD
October 9, 2012
3:12-cv-00141-LRH-RAM
Page 4 of 4
______________________________________________________________________________
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, as to Request for Production Paragraph (11), [16]
Motion is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, as to Requests for Production Paragraph (12), [16]
Motion is GRANTED in part as follows:
(12)

From January 1, 2009 to the present, produce the performance
evaluations by superiors for the HARTFORD employees involved in
the evaluation of HERTZ’s claim, namely Kimberly Franken,
Heather Atherton, Katie Johnson, Shawn Vossen, Lynette Hamel,
Juan Mendez, Joye Kelley, Meri Gaston, Marvin Bryant, Jennifer
Greene, and Kim Black. (This request is not seeking social security,
family or heath information.)

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, as to Requests for Production Paragraphs (13) and
(14), [16] Motion is DENIED without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Mr. Weaver requests clarification from the Court as to the Defendant’s reserved rights
regarding objections. The Court confirms the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure remain
applicable.
At 2:36 p.m., the Court adjourns.
LANCE S. WILSON, CLERK

By: /s/ Paris Rich
Deputy Clerk