ORDERS:
ORDER
This matter comes before this Court pursuant to Petitioner's Second Motion to Compel
production of documents filed October 18, 1995, and Respondent QHG's Response thereto, filed
October 27, 1995. Also at issue is Respondent QHG's Second Motion to Compel Petitioner to
Produce Documents and for Appropriate Sanctions filed October 20, 1995, and Petitioner's
Return thereto, filed October 27, 1995. Pursuant to this Court's Order dated September 18,
1995, these prehearing motions are decided upon briefs without oral argument. After giving
careful consideration to the motions and to the supporting and opposing memoranda of counsel,
all motions are hereby denied.
I.PETITIONER'S SECOND MOTION TO COMPEL
Petitioner moved the Court to compel Respondent QHG to produce the following documents:
1. All documents relating to Carolinas' (QHG's) methodology as contained in its Certificate of
Need ("CON") application.
2. All documents supporting data contained in Carolinas' (QHG's) Table 5 and its assertion that
"For the calendar year 1993, the total inpatients with malignant DRG's was 978."
3. All documents regarding the number of inpatients transferred from Carolinas to McLeod for
radiation therapy treatment for fiscal years 1993 and 1994.
Regarding the documents sought by Petitioner, QHG responded that it has already provided
Petitioner with all available documents that fall within these requests. Other documents that may
have been responsive to the first and second requests were inadvertently discarded when a former
QHG employee left his job. Documents responsive to the third request are in the possession of
Petitioner. My Order of September 13, 1994, stated that "[t]o the extent that records relating to
transfers from Carolinas Hospital System are already in the possession of McLeod, QHG is not
required to provide these documents." Because QHG has represented that no additional
documents exist which are responsive to these requests, Petitioner's Motion to Compel is hereby
denied. However, if any responsive information has become available subsequent to QHG's
response, QHG has an ongoing responsibility to supplement and update the information provided.
II. RESPONDENT QHG'S SECOND MOTION TO COMPEL
Respondent QHG moved the Court to compel Petitioner to produce the following documents:
1. Budgets and Related Information.
2. Documents Showing Charges of Other Providers.
3. Documents Showing the Curative/Palliative Mix of Radiation Therapy Patients.
4. Documents Relied Upon or Provided to Expert Witnesses.
5. McLeod's Financial Statements.
6. Documents Showing the Location and Number of Patients Treated by McLeod for Cancer.
7. Documents Used by McLeod to Calculate ESTV's.
Request 1. As to this request, Petitioner represented that it has been met by the furnishing of
computerized reports from fiscal years 1993 and 1994 to QHG. Petitioner asserts that these
reports provide more accurate and useful information than a budget or financial statement.
Additionally, Petitioner represented that it has produced to QHG radiation therapy department
budgets for fiscal years 1993 and 1994. Because Petitioner has furnished QHG with the
computerized reports and budgets, as well as cost reports (as requested), QHG has fully complied
with this request. To the extent that QHG's Motion to Compel seeks budgetary information other
than what has been provided by Petitioner, it is hereby denied.
Request 2. As to this request, Petitioner asserts the requested information is irrelevant to this case
because it concerns providers located outside the "territory" as defined by QHG. I find that this
information is irrelevant for the stated reason and order that Petitioner is not compelled to
disclose it to QHG.
Request 3. As to this request, Petitioner asserts that it is too burdensome and that the information
sought is irrelevant to this case because the curative/palliative mix is not germane to a
determination of whether an additional linear accelerator should be approved. I find that this
information is irrelevant for the stated reason and order that Petitioner is not compelled to
disclose it to QHG.
Request 4. As to this request, Petitioner asserts that it has provided QHG with all documents
relied upon or provided to expert witnesses. Because Petitioner has represented that no
additional documents exist which have been relied upon or provided to experts, QHG's Motion to
Compel on this ground is denied. However, if any responsive information has become available
subsequent to Petitioner's response, Petitioner has an ongoing responsibility to supplement and
update the information provided.
Request 5. As to this request, Petitioner asserts that its financial information is proprietary and
confidential and is irrelevant to this case because McLeod is not the CON applicant. I find that
this information is irrelevant for the stated reason and order that Petitioner is not compelled to
disclose it to QHG.
Request 6. As to this request, Petitioner asserts the location and number of patients it has treated
for cancer is irrelevant to this case. Petitioner argues that it has already provided information
regarding the type of services at issue (radiation therapy) in this case. I find that this information
is irrelevant for the stated reason and order that Petitioner is not compelled to disclose it to QHG.
Request 7. As to this request, Petitioner asserts that it has provided QHG with all documents it
has used to calculate ESTV's. Because Petitioner has represented that no additional documents
exist which have been used to calculate ESTV's, QHG's Motion to Compel on this ground is
denied. However, if any responsive information has become available subsequent to Petitioner's
response, Petitioner has an ongoing responsibility to supplement and update the information
provided.
III.RESPONDENT QHG'S MOTION FOR APPROPRIATE SANCTIONS
QHG moves this Court to impose sanctions on Petitioner upon allegations that Petitioner wilfully
withheld requested information and mislead this Court. As is evidenced by the denial of all
grounds of QHG's Motion to Compel, QHG has patently failed to demonstrate that sanctions
should be imposed upon Petitioner. Therefore, QHG's Motion for Appropriate Sanctions is
hereby denied.
IV. RESPONDENT QHG'S REQUEST THAT PETITIONER IDENTIFY THE
INDIVIDUALS RESPONSIBLE FOR PETITIONER'S RESPONSES.
At the close of its supporting memorandum, QHG requests that Petitioner be ordered to identify
the individuals who were responsible for the preparation of Petitioner's responses to QHG's
discovery requests. This request is opposed by Petitioner. Because QHG failed to identify any
reason why I should compel Petitioner to identify such individuals, the request is hereby denied.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
______________________________
STEPHEN P. BATES
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
October 31, 1995
Columbia, South Carolina |
