I went back to when the original motion was made for court assistance on the medical records and it was denied.
What I found odd though was that Pattis says that he 'has come into possession' of JD medical bills from Anthem Blue Cross from Feb-April i/a/o $14,000.
So far as I can see, neither the Judge nor State's Atty questions how exactly FD/Pattisvile 'came into possession' of the medical bills. Did FD/Pattis obtain the JD bill by legal means? Are we to assume this due to the fact that the medical bills were discussed in court or not?
^^SBM
I recall the issue of health insurance was a matter brought up in family court when JD alleged FD allowed their health insurance to lapse.
FD is a party to the family court case-- giving him some knowledge of matters before that court. This info may have been as simple as proof to the Court and Subscriber that coverage was reinstated.
At the time the court convened, Judge provided that counsel had met in chambers prior to hearing, and there seemed to be some knowledge by the court of motions to be discussed at hearing.
For the purpose of this discussion, we know there was valid insurance coverage for the period Feb - April 2019 by Anthem Blue Cross.
The issue of $14,000 of lab work was not a bill, but instead presented as services that were
paid by Anthem Blue Cross. Also from the comments made in Court, it appears that defense was privy to a very limited EOB -- especially given that they could not even identify the provider of services from the information they viewed.
I think its most likely that FD obtained the insurance info either from his family court lawyer, or by accessing the Subscriber/ABC account online.
Given that current insurance plans are issued pursuant to ACA-- with the deductible limit "per family," I could see where FD viewed very limited information about lab work -- more specifically amount paid by ABC, for purpose of determining how much of the plan deductible met.
Nothing was challenged as illegal access regarding this motion. If so, that alone could be basis to deny motion!
What we know is that the court agreed with Prosecution that defense motion was based on speculation only, and motion denied for defense to receive additional explanation of the services covered for JD.
At this time, I believe the insurance inquiry a moot point.
MOO