Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 23:37:27 -0400 Subject: My answers to UNUM's document Production Requests UNITED STATE FEDERAL COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS JUDY E. MORRIS, MD ) ) Plaintiff ) Civil Action No. CA 98-30204 FHF ) v. ) ) UNUM CORPORATION OF AMERICA, ) et al. ) Defendants ANSWERS OF THE PLAINTIFF, JUDY E. MORRIS, M.D. TO THE DEFENDANT'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
Note: I am answering these questions to the best of my ability and recollection to submit by deadline of July 10, 1999. I reserve the right to supplement these answers if I find that I have forgotten something. I make no guarantees to the completeness of these answers, especially considering the extensive and burdensome nature of many of them and the questionable relevance of the information they are requesting. Much of the information you have requested, to the extent that it is relevant to my claims is information that should have been obtained during the initial investigation and appeal of my disability claims. The fact that you now seek this information is prima facie evidence that your initial investigation prior to the denial of my claims was inadequate and biased. Furthermore, I am still suffering from Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and submit 2 pages from my most recent Calendar regarding the exacerbation of my symptoms that I have been having in the last 2 months. (Attachment 0)
Document Request No. 1
Each and every item of tangible property, document or writing which you intend to use at trial for any purpose whatsoever.
Answer No. 1
The plaintiff objects to this interrogatory as being overly broad and unduly burdensome and premature. It also requests information that has been provided repeatedly to defendants in the last two years and is therefore repetitious. There is yet no trial date set and the probable date is over a year away. At the present time, this request is not subject to a meaningful response. Furthermore it requests information protected because it is information that plaintiff is gathering in preparation for litigation. This question is a violation of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and was clearly asked with intent to be a "fishing expedition," to harass the plaintiff and unnecessarily increase the expense and effort of her litigation is she were to even attempt to comply with this. Furthermore plaintiff has offered to meet anytime, anywhere with defendants agree upon an administrative record to present to the court. Defendants have refused to meet because of plaintiff's requirement that she be allowed to tape record such a meeting both as a memory aid and to prevent miscommunication between plaintiff and defendants' counsel. Without waiving these objections, the plaintiff states as follows:
UNUM already has in its possession and has had for some time my doctor's reports, my insurance and claim applications, my medical records, numerous correspondence between myself and UNUM, tape recordings between adjusters and myself and field investigators and myself that were submitted with previous motions, my test results, information from reputable medical organizations regarding how a diagnosis of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome is made and the recommendations for treatment and other information, including lists of current case law and judicial opinions regarding CFS, that has been previously provided by plaintiff since she filed her claims either as part of the claims and appeals procedure or as part of the subsequent lawsuit. UNUM also has the Maine Board of Medicine ruling that Dr. Pringle was "practicing medicine" and their admonition to her to read the AMA's Code of Ethics. UNUM has received the opinion of the EEOC that there is probable cause to my complaints of discrimination in both UNUM's policies and in the handling of my claims.
Plaintiff has and will continue to make available to defendants information as required up until trial.
Document Request No. 2
Any written statements that you have obtained from any person concerning this action or its subject matter.
Answer No. 2
Plaintiff objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad, burdensome, irrelevant and seeks information for which plaintiff fears may lead to harassment of witnesses. Furthermore plaintiff objects on the same grounds as she objects to Document Production 1 that it is part of a "fishing expedition," work prepared in preparation for litigation, vague and ambiguous and meant to harass.
Plaintiff will require from UNUM prior to producing the names of any witnesses a sworn affidavit that UNUM, nor any person working for or at the direction of UNUM in any way, will:
1) not attempt to contact plaintiff's witnesses, experts or others in person or by telephone
2) will contact such witnesses only in writing and by mail with a copy of any such correspondence also automatically going to plaintiff at that time
3) that plaintiff's witnesses will not be subjected to surveillance, background checks or other unwarranted intrusions into their privacy
4) if UNUM wishes to question or depose plaintiff's witnesses this will be arranged with plaintiff present in person or by telephone and plaintiff will be allowed to tape record all conversations with potential witnesses in her trial, and be sent a true and correct copy of any written document produced by UNUM related to these witnesses and from these encounters as soon as such document is available to UNUM.
Document Production Request No. 3
All documents between you and any other person concerning the issues raised in this litigation regardless of whether such communication was initiated by you or such other person.
Answer No. 3.
Plaintiff objects to this question on the grounds as Document Production Requests 1 and 2 in that it is overly broad, burdensome, a "fishing expedition", work done by plaintiff in preparation for litigation, and for reasons stated above may impair the privacy of individuals and subject them to harassment from UNUM. Notwithstanding and without waiving these objections the plaintiff states as follows:
Since 1997 I have had conversations and collected information from hundreds, and probably thousands of people. The relevant parts of what I have discovered I have posted on my website on the Internet which is easily available to UNUM. Other documents related to this litigation, such as the Court Rulings in Steve Russell's' case and the judicial opinions in John Dishman and Patricia Paciello cases have been submitted previously in this litigation, in my participation in the recent merger hearings and/or UNUM should certainly have in their possession since they concern UNUM claimants.
Document Production Request No. 4
All documents generated by you concerning the issues raised in this litigation.
Answer No 4.
Same objections as Requests 1, 2 and 3. Plaintiff objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad, burdensome and repetitious. Furthermore and without waiving those objections, you know that I have written reams of information regarding UNUM and this litigation and that producing copies of all of this information, much of it already produced to you, would entail weeks to months of work, and excessive copying and postage expenses.
Plaintiff objects to this request on the grounds of Fed. Rul. Civ. P. 26 (g)(2)(B) and (C). Plaintiff believes requests such as these by UNUM are, based on plaintiff's knowledge, information and belief, solely for an improper purpose, that being to "harass^Åto cause unnecessary delay and needless increase in the cost of this litigation."
Document Production Request No. 5
All documents in your possession, custody or control concerning the issues raised in this litigation.
Answer No. 5.
Same objections as requests 1,2,3, and 4. Plaintiff objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad, burdensome and repetitious for reasons stated above. Without waiving these objections, the defendant states that she has attempted with great regularity to provide UNUM, repeatedly, with the pertinent documentation, case law, and other information regarding this case. This information, to the extent that plaintiff thought it pertinent to this litigation, and while attempting to provide protection against harassment to witnesses, is already in UNUM's possession or could easily have been requested or obtained by UNUM in the past.
Document Production Request No. 6
All written job descriptions describing the employment position you held at the time of the alleged disability and any employment positions you have held since your alleged disability began.
Answer No. 6
To the extent that it is relevant to this case, UNUM should have obtained this information during the claims and/or appeals process. Asking for it now is evidence that UNUM's initial claims investigation was incomplete and biased. Because plaintiff's policies are own-occupation and specifically state that her occupation is that of an ER doctor, any investigation by UNUM should have been concerned with what the duties of an ER doctor are and should not depend on plaintiff to provide this information now. Notwithstanding and without waiving these objections the plaintiff states as follows:
Enclosed please find: Attachment 1) a copy of my employment agreement with Harrington Memorial Hospital for the year 1996 Attachment 2) UNUM's vocational analysis by Nancy Bogg Associates of the duties of an ER doctor Attachment 3) Job Analysis form filled out by plaintiff's supervisor Dr. Alex Matolscy Attachment 4) Other information provided by Nancy Bogg Associates
In general, most reasonable people recognize the fact that the job of an Emergency Room doctor is one of almost continuous mental activity, as well as the physical activity of requiring the doctor to be on their feet at almost all times, and also involves some extreme emotional stresses from time to time. There are also the inherent immunological stresses of being a doctor where one is exposed on an almost continuous basis to numbers pathogens of all sorts.
Document Production Request No. 7
All personnel records, as that term is defined in Massachusetts General Laws chapter 149, section 52C, for any employment position held by you from January 1, 1990 to the present.
Answer No. 7
Plaintiff objects to this request as it represents information that UNUM could have and should have obtained from plaintiff's employers if UNUM thought it was pertinent to this case. Please see the consent form that plaintiff was required to sign at the beginning of her claims process which gave UNUM permission to evaluate my employment history (Attachment 5). UNUM chose not to exercise this option between January 1997 and November 1, 1998 when I revoked this consent (Attachment 6). Obviously UNUM did not feel this information pertinent or else the fact that they seek this information now is prima facie evidence of an incomplete evaluation prior to claim denial which constitutes Bad Faith. I believe this is grounds for estoppel of any information UNUM should have and had the means to obtain during the pendancy of my claim and chose, of their own accord, not to investigate.
Document Production Request No. 8
All medical records concerning any medical treatment received by you from any health care facility operated by the University of Massachusetts
Answer No. 8
UNUM has already requested and obtained a copy of the consultation I had with Dr. Paula Ravin on May 1, 1996. I believe the only other treatment or evaluation I have had, to the best of my recollection, at the University of Massachusetts was a Sleep Study (at the suggestion of Dr. Nancy Klimas). I am enclosing a copy of this study done on September 16, 1997. This study confirmed Dr. Klimas' suspicion of a sleep disorder as evidenced by complete absence of Stage 4 sleep, three times normal amounts of Stage 2 sleep and 56 "arousal's" during the night. (Attachment 7)
Document Production Request No. 9
All medical records concerning any medical treatment provided to you by Nancy Klimas, MD and/or any of her associates.
Answer No. 9
I only saw Dr. Klimas in a consultative capacity on June 5, 1997 and for follow-up of labs on June 19, 1997. She confirmed a diagnosis of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and stated "Marked T cell activation," "abnormal CD4 cell subsets," "as described in articles by our group and by Levi, Straus & others," "(1) Complete (sic) consistent c CFS, clinically, historically, and immunologically," "(2) sleep disorder." UNUM has already received multiple copies of these records and their receipt was in fact, acknowledged by Dr. Jane Pringle.
Document Production Request No. 10
All medical records concerning any medical treatment you have received from any health care provider or facility since April 11, 1997.
Answer No. 10
I have continued since April 11, 1997 to send UNUM my medical reports. The fact that you request them now and that they were ignored during the Appeals Process of my claims is Prima Facie evidence that the review of my claim denial was not "full and fair" as required by ERISA. You have had this information in your possession either because I sent them or because they were part of the information I have submitted since this lawsuit began. Also up until I revoked my consent in November of 1998, UNUM had my permission to obtain such records. The only records you may not have, to the best of my recollection, are the following:
1) Follow-up visit with Dr. McIlvaine, December 22, 1998 (Attachment 8a)
2) Follow-up visit with Dr. McIlvaine, June 10, 1999. (Attachment 8b)
3) Follow-up visit with Dr. Richard Glew, January 26, 1998. (Attachment 9) Please note that although Dr. Glew and I discussed having neuropsych testing done, I have still not had it for several reasons: a) it is expensive and I currently have no insurance and am living off a limited amount of money in my savings account b) from the experience of other persons who have had these tests and were involved with UNUM, it appeared that UNUM would not accept the results of these tests anyway as proof of disability c) I asked UNUM repeatedly in writing to recommend some test or procedure that they would accept as proof of my disability and they continuously ignored my requests d) the Centers for Disease Control, National Institutes of Health, my physicians, UNUM's own agents, my employer and present case law do not require neuropsych testing as evidence of disability. (e) they would not be particularly meaningful since the would not be administered under the working conditions of my occupation as an ER doctor, nor are they geared towards determining mental capacity to work in as highly specialized and complex field as ER medicine.
4) In November 1997, I severely burned my left hand in a cooking accident. I was treated by Dr. McIlvaine and Dr. Caetano Rodamilans. Fortunately the burn healed without residual except mild scarring. I don't feel this is pertinent to this dispute except for the fact that the burn occurred because of exhaustion and short term memory deficits I experience due to CFS. I do not have copies of these records.
Document Production Request No. 11
All notes and treatment records of any kind whatsoever from any psychologist or psychiatrist or other mental health care provider with whom you have consulted or from whom you have received treatment since April 11, 1997.
Answer No. 11
To the best of my recollection, UNUM has in its possession all letters, correspondence and treatment notes from Dr. Kebrdle and Dr. Klass or could have obtained them. I do not have copies of records since April, 1997 but UNUM had a consent form and could have obtained them at any time prior to my revocation of consent on November 1, 1998.
The only information they might not have is that I went to Dr. Kenneth Director on, May 30, 1997, for a second opinion. He concurred with Dr. Klass that I am not suffering from any psychiatric condition and that the psychiatric symptoms I am having are directly related to the stresses and harassment I am being put under by my insurance company (Attachment 10).
Document Production Request No. 12
All documents in your possession or control, including but not limited to all internal policy documents, sales lists or other internal memoranda, concerning UNUM Corporation or any of its subsidiaries including but not limited to UNUM Life Insurance Company of America, Colonial Life and Accident and Duncanson & Holt.
Answer No. 12
To the best of my knowledge, the only "internal" document I have is entitled UNUM Life Insurance Company, Southern Regional Benefits, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Management Program, Carolyn L. Jackson, MD, Revised April 4, 1995. I have already submitted and made reference to this document numerous times during the last two years and this litigation. To the extent that these documents are relevant to my case, UNUM should be providing them to me but they have refused.
Document Production Request No. 13
All documents concerning your response to interrogatory number 11.
Answer No. 13.
To the extent that this information is relevant to this claim, the identities and observations of individuals who have direct knowledge of the physical and emotional requirements of my position at Harrington Hospital should have been obtained prior to the denial of my disability claims. The fact that UNUM is now requesting this information is further prima facie evidence that their initial claims evaluation was incomplete, biased and in Bad Faith and that their review of the denial was neither "full" nor "fair" as required by ERISA. UNUM spent a great deal of money hiring Private Investigators to follow plaintiff around for weeks but none of them ever interviewed or attempted to interview any person or persons who would have had the kind of knowledge this question is seeking.
Furthermore plaintiff is now concerned that if she reveals the names of individuals without protection from the courts that her witnesses may be intimidated or harassed by UNUM. Therefore, as I stated in Answer No. 2, I will require from UNUM prior to producing the names of any witnesses, a sworn affidavit that UNUM, nor any person working for or at the direction of UNUM in any way, will:
1) not attempt to contact plaintiff's witnesses, experts or others in person or by telephone
2) will contact such witnesses only by mail with a copies of any such correspondence also automatically going to plaintiff at that time
3) that plaintiff's witnesses will not be subjected to surveillance, background checks or other unwarranted intrusions into their privacy
4) if UNUM wishes to question or depose plaintiff's witness this will be arranged with plaintiff present in person or by telephone and plaintiff will be allowed to tape record all conversations with potential witnesses in her trial, and be sent a true and correct copy of any written document produced by UNUM related to these witnesses.
Furthermore, UNUM had every opportunity to question plaintiff's co-workers, superiors, acquaintances, subordinates and bosses during the pendancy of her claim and neglected to do so. They should therefore be estopped from using this information in any attempt to further deny her claims as it would merely mean that their original investigation was, in fact, inadequate and prima facie, evidence of a Bad Faith investigation.
Document Production Request No. 14.
All documents concerning your response to interrogatories number 12 through 16.
Answer No. 14
See answer to Interrogatories No. 12 through 16.
Document Production Request No. 15.
Copies of all documents you intend to produce as evidence at trial
Answer No. 15
Same objections as to Document Production Request No. 1.
Document Production Request No. 16
All documents concerning your response to interrogatory number 20(f) and (g)
Answer No. 16
Plaintiff objects to this request as overbroad, unduly burdensome and premature. Furthermore it requests information which is certainly beyond the scope of her personal knowledge since she cannot say what opinions her experts will provide nor the material they will use to base their opinions on. However, plaintiff states that there is a large body of scientific information in journals, books, government publications, and legal documents regarding Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and the questions involved in this litigation that, as disability evaluators who deal with thousands of claims for these diagnoses, UNUM should certainly have access to and should have been referring to during the initial claims processing and appeal. Furthermore due to plaintiff's severe financial and energy limitations, she may have great difficulty in hiring expert witnesses as most expect to be paid thousands of dollars for their reviews and testimony and plaintiff would also have to pay their traveling expenses. Also, without waiving these objections, before plaintiff reveals the names of any of her expert witnesses she will require from UNUM, in order to prevent harassment of her experts, a sworn affidavit that UNUM, nor any person working for or at the direction of UNUM in any way, will:
1) not attempt to contact plaintiff's witnesses, experts or others in person or by telephone
2) will contact such witnesses only in writing and by mail with a copy of any such correspondence also automatically going to plaintiff at that time
3) that plaintiff's witnesses will not be subjected to surveillance, background checks or other unwarranted intrusions into their privacy
4) if UNUM wishes to question or depose plaintiff's witnesses this will be arranged with plaintiff present in person or by telephone and plaintiff will be allowed to tape record all conversations with potential witnesses in her trial, and be sent a true and correct copy of any written document produced by UNUM related to these witnesses and from these encounters as soon as such document is available to UNUM.
Document Production Request No. 17
All documents concerning your response to interrogatory number 21(g)
Answer No. 17
I do not know what you mean by the term "admissions or declarations against interest" and therefore I am unable to answer this question as it is vague and ambiguous.
Document Production No. 18
All documents concerning any of the income described in interrogatory number 23.
Answer No. 18
To the best of my recollection and knowledge, the only income I have received since April 11. 1997, was $200 for doing a medical evaluation.
My mother "gifts" to me $9999 per year as allowed by the Federal Income Tax laws.
There were some minor amounts of interest on my savings and investments which have ceased since I cashed in my investments in order to have money to pay my expenses.
The documentation of this income is not easily available to me nor relevant to the determination of my disability under the terms of either of my policies.
Date: The Plaintiff, JUDY E. MORRIS, MD PRO SE 261 Bumstead Rd. Monson, MA 01057 (413) 267-3606 Certificate of Service I hereby certify that a true copy of the above document was served upon the Katherine A. Robertson postage prepaid United States Mail on ________________ Judy Morris, MD PRO SE 261 Bumstead Rd. Monson, MA 01057
Judydoc's Diary Page
Judydoc's Home PageInsurance PageUncivilization and its DiscontentsHome Page
Email Judy Morris
at: judydoc AT worldnet DOT att DOT netEmail me, Bill Hammel
at: bhammel AT graham DOT main DOT nc DOT us
The URL for this document is:
http://graham.main.nc.us/~bhammel/INS/DOCS/dni5-072199.html
Created: July 22, 1999
Last Updated: May 28, 2000