Attorneys for Dr. Carlon Colker and Peak Wellness Inc. are pushing back against a court order that could tie Vince McMahon directly to Janel Grants medical expenses.
Colkers legal team filed a notice of appeal this week with the Connecticut Superior Court, challenging Judge David Bothwells December 11 ruling that compelled the defendants to produce billing statements showing who paid for Grants medical treatment specifically by the courts January 12 deadline.
While the full argument behind the appeal hasnt been submitted yet to the Connecticut Appellate Court, Colkers side has previously accused Grants legal team of trying to misuse the process. In court filings, they called the demand an open-ended fishing expedition and argued it overreaches the permissible scope of a bill of discovery.
The move comes amid a broader legal effort by Grant to confirm whether Vince McMahon personally paid for her medical care, as part of her ongoing legal battle accusing McMahon of sexual assault and sex trafficking. McMahon has denied all allegations. That federal case is still pending in the U.S. District Court of Connecticut and currently centers on whether the dispute will proceed publicly or be forced into private arbitration.
In this state-level action, Grant is asking the court to compel Colker to turn over documents not suing him directly. Colkers team claims theyve already produced hundreds of pages of medical records and acted in good faith with discovery efforts. But the point of contention is the billing records, which are marked paid but reportedly dont show who made the payments.
At a December 9 hearing, Grants attorney Erica Nolan argued that Colkers team has still refused to hand over documents that could prove whether McMahon footed the bill. She emphasized that the plaintiffs arent asking for personal information only an official record of who paid.
Judge Bothwell pressed Colkers attorney Frank Silvestri on that point, questioning how records involving someone of McMahons financial stature would be difficult to locate. Bothwell added that its the defendants duty to review the documents and determine if any of it falls under physician-patient privilege not simply refuse to produce it.
Colkers team maintains that releasing more documentation would invade privacy and extend beyond whats appropriate for a pre-suit discovery action. Still, the judge ruled against them and now theyre trying to overturn that decision.
In a separate but related case, Colker is also suing one of Grants attorneys, Ann Callis, for defamation in federal court in Connecticut. That case remains active as well.
Do you think Colker should be forced to turn over the payment records? Please share your thoughts and feedback in the comment section below.
