Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Multiplan, Inc. v. Holland

United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Southern Division

February 16, 2018

MULTIPLAN, INC. and PRIVATE HEALTHCARE SYSTEMS, INC. PLAINTIFFS/ COUNTER-DEFENDANTS
v.
STEVEN W. HOLLAND, doing business as Physical Therapy Clinic of Gulfport DEFENDANT/COUNTERCLAIMANT

          ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART THE OMNIBUS MOTION IN LIMINE FILED BY MULTIPLAN AND PHCS

          LOUIS GUIROLA, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         BEFORE THE COURT is the [261] Omnibus Motion in Limine filed by the plaintiffs/counter-defendants Multiplan, Inc. and Private Healthcare Systems, Inc. Holland filed a response to the Motion that did not include any substantive arguments or authority, and he failed to timely submit a supporting memorandum to the Court.[1] After reviewing the Motion, the record in this matter and the applicable law, the Court finds that Omnibus Motion in Limine should be granted in part and denied in part as set forth herein.

         BACKGROUND

         This lawsuit arose out of a dispute between a physical therapist, Steven W. Holland, and two preferred provider organizations (PPOs), PHCS and Multiplan. Holland alleges that the PPOs applied discounts to workers' compensation claims to which they were not entitled. Multiplan and PHCS allege that Holland and Kevin Barrett, doing business as Quest Financial Recovery Services, harassed their clients and interfered with their business relations.

         DISCUSSION

         The Court finds that Holland shall be prohibited from referencing or introducing any of the following:

(1) claims that have previously been dismissed by the Court;
(2) claims that Multiplan and/or PHCS's conduct caused problems for Holland's family;
(3) expert opinions concerning the motives, intent, or ethics of Multiplan and PHCS - see Romero v. Wyeth Pharm., Inc. , No. 1:03cv1367, 2012 WL 12905978, at *6 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 26, 2012);
(4) Multiplan and PHCS's failure to call any particular witness that is equally available to Holland;
(5) testimony or evidence concerning the size or wealth of Multiplan and PHCS;
(6) any portion of a deposition to which an objection was made, unless the Court first overrules the objection;
(7) any argument that the trial or an adverse verdict will have no adverse effect on ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.