Brian Martin v. Power Service Products, Inc. (2011)

ORDER RE MOTION TO COMPEL (# 163)

Before the court is the motion to compel filed by the defendant, Power Service Products, Inc. The plaintiff, Brian Martin, is the guardian of the person and estate of Jason Martin, who was severely injured in an automobile accident on February 16, 2003.   The plaintiff's complaint against the defendant is a products liability action.

A serviceman at the time of the accident, Jason Martin's medical care has been provided by the Veteran's Administration.   By this motion, the defendant seeks authorizations by the plaintiff for Veteran's Administration liens or any correspondence between the plaintiff relevant to proposed payments to the Veteran's Administration that may be subject to liens and/or rights of subrogation.   The defendant relies upon 42 U.S.C. § 2651 (“The Medical Care Recovery Act”), and argues that the United States has subrogation rights and may intervene in this action for reimbursement of medical expenses paid for Jason Martin.

42 U.S.C. § 2651(a) states, in relevant part:  “In any case in which the United States is authorized or required by law to furnish or pay for hospital, medical, surgical, or dental care and treatment ․ to a person who is injured ․ under circumstances creating a tort liability upon some third person ․ to pay damages therefor, the United States shall have a right to recover (independent of the rights of the injured or diseased person) from said third person, or that person's insurer, the reasonable value of the care and treatment so furnished, to be furnished, paid for, or to be paid for and shall, as to this right be subrogated to any right or claim that the injured or diseased person, his guardian, personal representative, estate, dependents, or survivors has against such third person to the extent of the reasonable value of the care and treatment so furnished, to be furnished, paid for, or to be paid for ․” There is no Connecticut law addressing this statute.

The defendant argues that these authorizations are critical to its defense of the action brought by the plaintiff.   The court disagrees.  Practice Book § 13–14(a) provides, in pertinent part, that a trial court “may, on motion [to compel production], make such order as the ends of justice require.”   “Consequently, the granting or denial of a discovery request rests in the sound discretion of the court ․” (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  Berglass v. Berglass, 71 Conn.App. 771, 786, 804 A.2d 889 (2002).

The evidence sought by the defendant is irrelevant to its pre-verdict liability and damages.   Connecticut law provides that once liability has been established and damages awarded to the plaintiff that the amount of such an award may be reduced to reflect relevant payment to the plaintiff from certain collateral sources.   See General Statutes § 52–225a.   Generally, information is subject to pre-trial discovery only if it “would be of assistance in the prosecution or defense of the action” and “appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.”  Practice Book § 13–2.   The post-trial proceedings pursuant to § 52–225a cannot be said to assist in the defense of this action or lead to the discovery of admissible evidence for trial and accordingly, need not be disclosed in this pre-trial discovery.¹

For all of the foregoing reasons, the defendant's motion to compel is denied.

Devine, J.

FOOTNOTES

FN1. The court notes that the plaintiff has provided two letters to the defendant dated March 3, 2010 and November 29, 2010, from the Department of Veteran's Affairs, which indicate that there are no liens regarding Mr. Martin..  FN1. The court notes that the plaintiff has provided two letters to the defendant dated March 3, 2010 and November 29, 2010, from the Department of Veteran's Affairs, which indicate that there are no liens regarding Mr. Martin.

Devine, James J., J.