Medical billing and debt collection in the US

[Darius871]

It's difficult to grasp because most of us aren't soulless lawyers, and taking someone to court over a bill that was never actually billed (rather than, you know, sending the bill) seems evil and underhanded even for a lawyer.

FWIW I've never opined about what the collector(s) should do in this case. Of course it's generally the best practice to send the original invoice because, your trite moral universalism aside, 1) it is more likely to induce costless voluntary payment by the debtor and/or the insurer if there is one, plus 2) non-response to the invoice would be construed as passive acquiescence supporting an "account stated" cause of action even if no contract exists. For those two reasons alone, no, I would never deliberately withhold an invoice.

[Darius871]

By definition when the FDCPA violation costs you more than the debt is worth, why not just send the damn invoice?

1) One reason is that these companies tend to approach FDCPA/TCPA/FCRA liabilities as the "cost of doing business" and calculate their impact in the aggregate. While in this particular case the $1000 statutory cap may exceed the $711 debt, that $1000 should be discounted by the fact that only a very small percentage of FDCPA violations actually result in suit or even informal demand. In the aggregate, systematic noncompliance with the most hypertechnical provisions of the FDCPA and compliance with only the more "sexy" provisions may result in more net profit than total compliance would. The investment bankers and actuaries among us should understand that. It's no different from a car manufacturer deciding to forego a $11 repair to millions of units because it would cost more than settling the few wrongful death suits that might result from the known design flaw. Go wherever the math takes you.

2) Why assume the original invoice even exists? Sometimes an original creditor's standard purge policy might have eliminated it, other times a collection agency might forego the administrative cost of requesting documents alongside electronic transfers of portfolio data, and secondary and tertiary debt buyers often don't receive anything from the sellers other than thousands of names, account numbers, and balances. They successfully assert the underlying debt regardless, typically with affidavits from custodians of records.

3) Again, I'm not denying that the best practice is always to send it when you have it. I was only rejecting the narrow proposition that having sent it is somehow legally relevant to validity of the claim, which it is not.

[Aeson]

FWIW I've never opined about what the collector(s) should do in this case. Of course it's generally the best practice to send the original invoice because, your trite moral universalism aside, 1) it is more likely to induce costless voluntary payment by the debtor and/or the insurer if there is one, plus 2) non-response to the invoice would be construed as passive acquiescence supporting an "account stated" cause of action even if no contract exists. For those two reasons alone, no, I would never deliberately withhold an invoice.

Thanks for confirming my point.

[Darius871]

Thanks for confirming my point.

Welcome to how the world works. Except maybe on your gong farm or whatever it is.

[KrazyHorse]

I still have no confidence that any judge would penalize somebody for not paying a bill they never received, due to a mistake on the part of the vendor. Nothing you've said so far has had any impact on that prior. My guess is that you have some theoretical justification behind your claim, but that judges display a hell of a lot more common sense than you have in cases with such small claims.

[Darius871]

Common sense, schmommon schmense. The contract already says what it says about collection costs so the judge doesn't have to take it upon himself/herself to "penalize" anybody, or to even give it any thought for that matter. In the midst of draconian budget cuts state-level judges have entirely too much on their minds to give one billionth of a **** about a slew of scumbag deadbeats trotting out the oldest excuses in the book.

[Aeson]

Welcome to how the world works. Except maybe on your gong farm or whatever it is.

No, I don't produce lawyers.

[Darius871]

I like to think of myself as more of a lamprey than gong.

[Aeson]

Aim high

[DinoDoc]

2) Why assume the original invoice even exists?

How would they go about satisfying the demands of the FDCPA, 15 USC 1692g Sec. 809? As a printout is NOT sufficient evidence of a debt and the burden of proof is on the collector.

[Darius871]

How would they go about satisfying the demands of the FDCPA, 15 USC 1692g Sec. 809? As a printout is NOT sufficient evidence of a debt and the burden of proof is on the collector.

1) See post 92(1). They don't necessarily have an economically rational incentive to satisfy the demands of 1692g in the first place.

2) Actually, the "burden of proof" is on the debtor because in the FDCPA context the debtor is a plaintiff bringing a cause of action to obtain a judgment. Contrary to popular misconceptions, FDCPA violations are not, under any circumstances, a defense to debt collection.

3) Re-read 1692g with your critical thinking cap on. It says absolutely nothing about "evidence of a debt," "proof," contracts, invoices, bills, or any particular type of document - it simply states the 5 pieces of information that must be contained in the initial g-notice and that "verification of the debt" must be provided upon written request from the debtor. As "verification" is undefined, that was left to the courts, who generally reasoned that Congress only wanted to make sure that third party collectors would get on the same page with their original creditor clients so that they wouldn't go after the wrong people or collect the same debt a second time. As such, it's well-settled that the collector need only make a cursory inquiry and then state 1) the original creditor and 2) the balance that the original creditor believes to be due. I've seen hundreds of these so-called "verifications" and their actual content literally could go on the back of a matchbook, so the "printout" to which you allude in fact is a generous courtesy. The courts' presumption is that if the so-called "verification" is nonetheless mistaken, then a reasonable debtor would either inquire with the original creditor directly or simply avail himself of the state courts' discovery function, which Congress did not intend to supplant or duplicate.

[Flubber]

Never knew this would generate so much discussion

Common sense, schmommon schmense. The contract already says what it says about collection costs so the judge doesn't have to take it upon himself/herself to "penalize" anybody, or to even give it any thought for that matter. In the midst of draconian budget cuts state-level judges have entirely too much on their minds to give one billionth of a **** about a slew of scumbag deadbeats trotting out the oldest excuses in the book.

1. Thanks for that Darius LOL-- never realized I was part of the "slew of scumbag deadbeats trotting out the oldest excuses in the book." If they ever send an invoice I will forward it to my insurer. They would probably get paid-- maybe not-- Oh and how exactly will the judge have proof of what the contract says if the plaintiff provides or has no documentation whatsoever??

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"

[KrazyHorse]

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

[Flubber]

Bonds are pennies on the dollar and fees can be amply supported by time log affidavits. I'm shaking in my boots.

.

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?)


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. 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?

[Flubber]

FWIW I've never opined about what the collector(s) should do in this case. Of course it's generally the best practice to send the original invoice because, your trite moral universalism aside, 1) it is more likely to induce costless voluntary payment by the debtor and/or the insurer if there is one, plus 2) non-response to the invoice would be construed as passive acquiescence supporting an "account stated" cause of action even if no contract exists. For those two reasons alone, no, I would never deliberately withhold an invoice.

IN this case it would cause me to pass it along to my insurer--- I actually am thinking I will pass along the collection agency document and ask them to deal with it . If this is really the docs, I would want them to get paid.