Skip Maine state header navigation
 |
| Home | Contact Us | Careers | Calendar |
|
Maine.gov
> PFR Home
> Insurance Regulation
> Hearing Decision Index
> Document 388 : INS 99-14 : Hearing Decision
STATE OF MAINE
Introduction On Friday February 4, 2000, the Applicants served their First Discovery Request (the "Request") on all of the intervenors in this proceeding, including MHA, Inc. The bulk of the Request tracked each of the relevant statutory inquiries set forth by the Superintendent in his November 4, 1999 Notice of Hearing and asked each intervenor to (1) state whether they contend, or expect to contend, that the Applicants have failed to satisfy any of the inquiries, and if so, (2) provide the facts, analyses and documents that support the contention(s). By serving the Request on the last day of the discovery period, Applicants ensured that the intervenors had access to as much information as possible before having to respond to the Request. In response to the Request, by filings dated February 16, 2000, MHA, Inc. filed (1) a "Motion to Permit Filing of Objections," which, properly characterized, is a memorandum explaining why the Superintendent’s November 4th Procedural Order and the Bureau’s Rules of Practice and Procedure really do not mean what they say, and (2) objections to each of the questions in the Request. As set forth below, the MHA’s reading of the Bureau’s Rules and the Superintendent’s Orders is convoluted and its objections are without merit. Anthem requests that the Superintendent issue an order requiring the intervenors to abide by the Bureau Rules and immediately provide meaningful answers to the Applicants’ Request.
Discussion I. The MHA’s Objections Are Not Timely In its Motion to File Objections, the MHA argues that its objections were timely filed. They were not. The Applicants served their Discovery Request on all of the intervenors, including MHA, Inc., via email and regular mail on Friday, February 4, 2000. Pursuant to Bureau Rule 10(B)(3), "[o]bjections to an informational request shall be filed with the Superintendent no later than five (5) working days after it is received." Pursuant to the Superintendent’s November 4, 1999 Procedural Order, "[i]f service is made on a party both electronically and by hard copy, the time to respond shall be calculated using the date the document is first received." The MHA’s five working days thus began on Monday February 7th and ended on Friday, February 11th. Their objections, filed on February 16th, were not timely and accordingly should be stricken and the MHA ordered to respond. Assuming that the Superintendent agrees, the remainder of this opposition may be ignored.
In its Opposition to the Intervenors’ Objections to Applicants’ First Discovery Request, Anthem explained that all parties have the obligation to respond to discovery requests. To avoid repetition, Anthem incorporates by reference that Opposition. In its objections, the MHA acknowledges that the Applicants Request seeks facts, documents and analyses concerning the relevant statutory inquiries set forth in the Superintendent’s November 4, 1999 Notice of Hearing. Remarkably, however, the MHA then takes the position that it is under absolutely no obligation to respond to the requests because those inquiries also concern, or may concern, topics that the MHA will cover in its prefiled testimony or expert reports that are not due until March 2nd and 24th, respectively. This would be akin to Anthem or BCBSME deferring responses to the 300+ discovery requests served on them because they will provide the relevant information in their prefiled testimony and expert reports. It should go without saying that "We’ll respond at the hearing" is an unacceptable response to a discovery request. The Superintendent should reject the MHA’s position out of hand.
* * * * The Applicants have produced volumes of information in response to over 300 multi-part discovery requests from the Superintendent and intervening parties. As parties to this proceeding, the three intervenors took on certain responsibilities, including the obligation to provide meaningful, good faith discovery responses. Anthem requests that the Superintendent order the three intervenors to live up to those responsibilities and respond to the Request immediately and in a full and complete manner.
DATED: February 18, 2000 _____________________________ James B. Zimpritch, Esq. Jeffrey M. White, Esq. Catherine R. Connors, Esq. PIERCE ATWOOD One Monument Square Portland, Maine 04101 (207) 791-1100 Attorneys for Anthem Insurance Companies, Inc
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that on February 18, 2000 a copy of Anthem Insurance Companies, Inc.’s Opposition to MHA, Inc.’s Objections to the Applicants’ First Discovery Request was served by United States mail, first class postage prepaid, email, or where indicated by hand delivery, on each of the persons listed below. Robert S. Frank, Esq. Harvey & Frank Two City Center P.O. Box 126 Portland, Maine 04112 e-mail: frank@harveyfrank.com
(Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Maine) Judith Chamberlain, Esq. State of Maine Department of the Attorney General 6 State House Station Augusta, Maine 04333-0006 e-mail: judy.chamberlain@state.me.us
(Bureau of Insurance) William H. Laubenstein, Esq. State of Maine Department of the Attorney General 6 State House Station Augusta, Maine 04333-0006 e-mail: bill.laubenstein@state.me.us
(Office of the Attorney General) Gregory A. Brodek, Esq. Duane, Morris & Heckscher, LLP 15 Columbia Street, 4th Floor Bangor, Maine 04401-6355 e-mail: gabrodek@duanemorris.com
(Maine Health Alliance) Joseph P. Ditre, Esq. Consumer Health Law Program One Weston Court, Level One P.O. Box 2490 Augusta, Maine 04338-2490 e-mail: jditre@mainecahc.org
(Consumers for Affordable Health Care Foundation/Coalition) Michele M. Garvin, Esq. Ropes & Gray One International Place Boston, Massachusetts 02110-2624 e-mail: Mgarvin@Ropesgray.com
(Central Maine Healthcare Corporation; Central Maine Partners Health Plan) Robert I. Goldman Maine Council of Senior Citizens 27 Bowery Beach Road Cape Elizabeth, Maine 04107 e-mail: Rgoldma1@maine.rr.com
(Maine Council of Senior Citizens) Bonnie Post Executive Director of the Maine Ambulatory Care Coalition P.O. Box 390 Manchester, Maine 04351 e-mail: bdpmacc@mint.net
(Sacopee Valley Health Center, Regional Medical Center at Lubec, Eastport Health Care, Inc., and the Maine Ambulatory Care Coalition) John Dieffenbacher-Krall Executive Director Maine People’s Alliance 192 State Street Portland, Maine 04101 e-mail: MPA@gwi.net
(Maine People’s Alliance) Gordon H. Smith, Esq. Maine Medical Association 30 Association Drive P.O. Box 190 Manchester, Maine 04351 e-mail: gsmith@ctel.net
(Thomas D. Hayward, M.D., Maroulla S. Gleaton, M.D., And the Maine Medical Association)
Donald E. Quigley, Esq. General Counsel 465 Congress Street, Suite 600 Portland, Maine 04101-3537 e-mail: quigld@mail.mmc.org
(Maine Medical Center) Sandra L. Parker, Esq. Attorney for MHA, Inc. 150 Capitol Street Augusta, Maine 04330 e-mail: sparker@themha.org
(MHA, Inc.) Kellie P. Miller, M.S. Executive Director Maine Osteopathic Association 693 Western Avenue Manchester, Maine 04351 e-mail: meosteo@mint.net
(Maine Osteopathic Association) Edward Miller Executive Director American Lung Association of Maine 122 State Street Augusta, Maine 04330 e-mail: emiller@mainelung.org
(American Lung Association of Maine)
DATED: February 18, 2000 _____________________________ James B. Zimpritch, Esq. Jeffrey M. White, Esq. Catherine R. Connors, Esq. PIERCE ATWOOD One Monument Square Portland, Maine 04101 (207) 791-1100 Attorneys for Anthem Insurance Companies, Inc. Last Updated: August 22, 2012 |
| Copyright © 2006 All rights reserved. |