A District Court judge in Missouri has granted summary judgment to a defendant accused of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act because it treated two debts from two different medical providers — originating from the same hospital visit — separately when trying to collect.
A copy of the ruling in the case of Cramer v. Bay Area Credit Service can be accessed by clicking here.
An individual went to a hospital emergency room for a drug overdose and provided the plaintiff’s name, Social Security number, and date of birth. The address provided by the individual did not match any address at which the plaintiff had ever lived. As a result of the visit, debts were incurred to three different entities — Golden Arch Emergency Physicians, American Medical Response, and SLUCare. The debts due to Golden Arch and AMR were placed with the defendant.
The plaintiff obtained a copy of her credit report and noticed the debts. She filed a police report alleging she had been a victim of identity theft. When the defendant contacted the plaintiff regarding the Golden Arch debt, she informed the representative about the police report and the representative agreed to place its collection efforts on hold.
Two months later, the defendant reported the AMR debt to the three major credit bureaus. The plaintiff disputed the debt with the bureaus, but did not dispute it with the defendant. The credit bureaus notified the defendant, which matched demographic information to confirm the debt, but still ceased its collection efforts.
The plaintiff filed suit, alleging the defendant violated Section 1692e(8) of the FDCPA by reporting the debt as delinquent, even though it knew the debt was a result of identity theft. The plaintiff made other claims, but the judge ruled they were duplicative of the 1692e(8) claim.
The plaintiff alleges the defendant should have known the AMR debt was a result of identity theft because she informed the representative that the Golden Arch debt was a result of identity theft. However, “Plaintiff does not support her argument with any case law or other authority to show that Bay Area had an affirmative duty or obligation under the FDCPA to review a debt other than the specifically disputed Golden Arch debt without a verbal or written dispute as to the AMR debt,” noted Judge Charles Shaw of the District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division.
Because the AMR debt was not discussed on the call between the plaintiff and the defendant, there was no reason for the defendant to cease its collection efforts, Judge Shaw ruled.
