Medical billing and debt collection in the US

[Darius871]

I get the feeling darius is going to get a surprise the first time he tries to get up in front of a judge...

Nope, no surprises in the ~30 times I've already been in front of a judge. But I'm sure you know better.

[Asher]

I get the feeling darius is going to get a surprise the first time he tries to get up in front of a judge...

[KrazyHorse]

Nope, no surprises in the ~30 times I've already been in front of a judge. But I'm sure you know better.

Yes, apparently.

I've noticed a definite tendency on your part to defend ridiculous legal arguments that seem to have no basis in how the law works in practice.

[KrazyHorse]

already posted

[Asher]

I'm not going to read this thread.

[Aeson]

It could be we just have a lot of ridiculous laws. ("could" referring to whether or not they apply ridiculously in this specific instance, because we surely have a lot of ridiculous laws)

[Darius871]

It could be we just have a lot of ridiculous laws. ("could" referring to whether or not they apply ridiculously in this specific instance, because we surely have a lot of ridiculous laws)

Bingo. I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that every nook and cranny of the system is a Kafkaesque nightmare. It's not supposed to make sense.

[Darius871]

Oh and how exactly will the judge have proof of what the contract says if the plaintiff provides or has no documentation whatsoever??

I never supposed that they wouldn't present admissible evidence in court. Obviously they have the burden of proof there, whether by original documents or an affidavit in lieu of them. I was only talking about what they do not have to do before entering that forum. FFS, how many times do I have to point that out?

2. All this US stuff is amusing but no matter what some state court says, they have to come to Alberta to enforce-- The things you say that do not matter in the US would certainly matter if they ever came here to actually get paid. Your position seems to be that if Joe provides some service to Tim and never invoices. Then 20 months later Tim gets a piece of paper from Bill that says "Re: Joe $711" that this would trigger a liability on Tim to pay not only the $711 but all kinds of additional costs for collection. You seem to say that tendering some form of actual clear demand is irrelevant. I don't know US law but that result would surprise me---

3. End of the day-- enforcement happens here . A Canadian judge will say " you never sent him an invoice and then ran up 5000 in costs on a 700 bill"

...

1. I will have to introduce you to Schedule C of our Bill of Costs
2. Bonds? So your US client will get a bond for pennies on the dollar in a Canadian Court?


LOts of inconvenience-- Would you really advise a client this was worth it?? It might be worth it for the lawyer but realistically Schedule C cost award is far less than full indemnification. ( As an example you get 1000 for a full day in court according Sched C-- you only charging your client that?)

Well, I'm not going to opine on how things might go in the People's Republic of Canadia. I'm sure a free BJ from a judge is a god-given right up there.

I am not afraid to admit I do not know US debt collection law but you portray a very collector friendly regime where a creditor doesn't have to provide anything to demand or substantiate the debt and some third party you have never heard of can name an amount and a hospital and suddenly the debtor could be on the hook for far more than the value of the original service. So debtors have to assume anyone that calls them is a valid agent.

This is essentially correct.

How do I know its not a fraud? Some scam outfit that somehow gets the names of people and addreses that were in a hospital and then sends collection bills far later so that memories fade and they choose small to moderate amounts to increase the liklihood of payment? They have not named the service provider so how could I verify?

For the fourth or fifth time I've said in this thread, the answer is obvious: avail yourself of a court's discovery process, whether by suing or getting sued. Until that time you have no rights. Can I safely assume you have requests for production, requests for admission, and interrogatories up there? That's what they're for. They're such powerful tools that Congress never saw the need to meaningfully supplement them.


That being said, you do have one very, very, very weak right prior to any court action. Assuming you haven't done so already, just send a letter to whoever the collection agency is, via both first class mail and certified mail with return receipt, saying the following:

"Please take notice that I hereby invoke my right under 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(b) to verification of the purported debt in my name placed with your office, and to the name and address of the original creditor, i.e., the actual provider of medical services. Please forward this information to me immediately so that I can arrange for appropriate payment."

Then, should they fail to respond within 30 days, send another letter demanding $1,000 in statutory penalties for 1) their illegally failing to have sent the 5-day notice already and 2) their failure to respond to your specific request for verification. Granted, for reasons noted in my reply to DinoDoc above, "verification" in this context is a meaningless word and they could satisfy it by scrawling "$711 owed to ACME Hospitals, Inc." on a bar napkin. Moreover, as I've explained before, this does not affect the enforceability of the debt. However, it could at least mean a little money in your pocket. Hell, I'd send the demands on my letterhead just for the amusement.

[Darius871]

I've noticed a definite tendency on your part to defend ridiculous legal arguments that seem to have no basis in how the law works in practice.

Because you have such extensive experience in "how the law works in practice," and because someone who has successfully sued debt collectors, defended debt collectors, sued debtors, defended debtors, completed bankruptcies for debtors, and defeated bankruptcies for creditors must be hopelessly ensconced in nebulous law school theory.

It may or may not be the case that my every word is tinged with my usual self-deprecating trolling that's deliberately wrong, but that doesn't mean overburdened courts in garden-variety debt cases are the sort of magical fairy-tale land that Hollywood has evidently crammed into the skulls of everyone here.

[Dr Strangelove]

It's a broader range than you'd think. One day I'm saving a million dollar house and the next day I'm clearing up a divorce's aftermath for a guy who lives out of his truck. But who knows, maybe this silent majority is mostly pro se filers.

A lot of them are just plain clueless as to what to do when they lose their jobs and their debts become due.

[Flubber]

Nope, no surprises in the ~30 times I've already been in front of a judge. But I'm sure you know better.

You are either very fortunate or have a very high standard for what constitutes a surprise. Litigators with 30 years of experience are constantly being surprised by judges--

[END NITPICK]

[Flubber]

I



Well, I'm not going to opine on how things might go in the People's Republic of Canadia. I'm sure a free BJ from a judge is a god-given right up there.

I'd stack the quality of our process against what you are relating about yours any day-- NO free BJ etc etc but the courts and in particular a small claims court like where this 700 matter would go if it happened here, are very very practical here . If you sued on an alleged debt without ever showing a demand that identified the party to whom the debt would have been originally owed, the judge would not be amused. MOst judges would kick it for wasting the court's time and tell you to come back after you had actually, provided an invoice and not gotten paid. Hell they would probably dress down the lawyer

But here is not there


Darius lets say I don't send the letter you suggest and they sue-- When served -- I assume you do have service requirements-- could I simply then say "Oh xyz company-- about time someone told me it was xyz" and tender the full amount of the original invoice with an affidavit telling the court that this matter was never properly invoiced and setting out how I had no idea as to the identity of the creditor-- Assuming I could file properly in whatever forum was required and a court actually finds my affidavit convincing as to the matters I assert--- could the plaintiff still successfully assert some thousands in collection costs? THat strikes me as ludicrous if a person can be obligated to pay thousands in "collection costs" that could have been avoided by simply tendering.

[Flubber]

It may or may not be the case that my every word is tinged with my usual self-deprecating trolling that's deliberately wrong, but that doesn't mean overburdened courts in garden-variety debt cases are the sort of magical fairy-tale land that Hollywood has evidently crammed into the skulls of everyone here.

ITs because I don't believe its a fairyland that I think that a judge in a 700 buck debt matter would look at you and say--- "He saw nothing for 20 months and then gets "this"" [ copy of the collection agency correspondence]-- He calls you twice and is willing to put you in touch with his insurance or pass on anything you actually send him and you sue him"-- The fact that I have 77,000 in PAID medical bills from this matter would be a part of this too-- The judge would know immediately he is dealing with a respectful, humble individual willing to pay their bills if they are actually sent them. In that I bet I would differ from most of the folks they see-- but its something they see enough to recognize--

You will probably tell me none of that matters-- The fairness of a situation is irrelevant--- If thats the case, your judiciary is nothing like ours-- I find that while they have to follow or apply the law, most judges try to reach results that they think is fair. You may not believe this . . .

None of this will come to this-- but it has been interesting for me to learn a little about US law


Darius do you still have civil procedure rules where plaintiffs don't have to pay defense costs if they lose? I saw a John Stossel report once (but I know how inaccurate media can be on legal things) and he cited it as the main reason for frivolous lawsuits-- People file anything because there are no consequences-- IF thats the case a person could file a claim in return and then hit them with loads of interogatories. Is that possible?? Can a person be frivolous and face zero cost consequences

[Darius871]

Darius lets say I don't send the letter you suggest and they sue-- When served -- I assume you do have service requirements-- could I simply then say "Oh xyz company-- about time someone told me it was xyz" and tender the full amount of the original invoice with an affidavit telling the court that this matter was never properly invoiced and setting out how I had no idea as to the identity of the creditor-- Assuming I could file properly in whatever forum was required and a court actually finds my affidavit convincing as to the matters I assert--- could the plaintiff still successfully assert some thousands in collection costs? THat strikes me as ludicrous if a person can be obligated to pay thousands in "collection costs" that could have been avoided by simply tendering.

It depends on whether they're prepared to submit their own affidavit about how per their standard operational procedure you would have been sent this and that template so you must be full of it, after which the judge just decides what's credible. But in reality if you paid in full like that they'd probably just drop it.

Darius do you still have civil procedure rules where plaintiffs don't have to pay defense costs if they lose? I saw a John Stossel report once (but I know how inaccurate media can be on legal things) and he cited it as the main reason for frivolous lawsuits-- People file anything because there are no consequences-- IF thats the case a person could file a claim in return and then hit them with loads of interogatories. Is that possible?? Can a person be frivolous and face zero cost consequences

Yes and no; that's what I'd alluded to earlier regarding the "English Rule" as opposed to the "American Rule." It is the case here that the loser must pay the victor's "costs and disbursements," but that is strictly limited to actual out-of-pocket, like court filing fees, transcription fees, witness fees, etc. Depending on the complexity of the case, these could be a pittance. In contrast to "costs and disbursements," actual attorneys' fees must be borne by both sides regardless of who wins. The only exceptions are where contract provides otherwise (resulting in virtually ubiquitous boilerplate for every business worth its salt) or where statute provides otherwise, such as the aforementioned FDCPA's grant of debtors' attorney fees. I've personally seen a debtor force a collection law firm to pay $42,000 of her attorneys' fees incurred to recover a paltry $1,000 penalty that hasn't been adjusted for inflation since the 1970s. That's where the real deterrent lies, and if you make the mere threat, a "cost of defense" offer of $1500-$2500 may well drop into your lap.

[Flubber]

It depends on whether they're prepared to submit their own affidavit about how per their standard operational procedure you would have been sent this and that template so you must be full of it, .

If they ever tried to assert that, I have little doubt that I would be believed - Is a judge going to believe I paid 77,000 of medical bills and then just ignored one for 700 bucks and then intentionally swore a false affidavit about it--- I can prove payment happened on all the rest-- PLus I had TWO insurance policies-- so why exactly would I lie?? [ Innocence smiley ]