A District Court judge in Alabama has dismissed a case in which a plaintiff claimed he was not responsible for an air ambulance bill because he was in a coma and did not agree to pay for the flight, ruling that the statute of limitations to sue the collector attempting to collect on the bill had expired.
A copy of the ruling in the case of Edwards v. Med-Trans Corp. et al can be accessed by clicking here.
The plaintiff received a bill for $46,188.17 after having a heart attack and being transported in an air ambulance so he could be treated by his regular physician. The authorization form for the flight was signed by the patient’s mother, but the plaintiff claims the price of the flight was never mentioned and nobody indicated that he would be responsible for the bill. As he was recovering, the plaintiff signed a form allowing the air ambulance service to charge the plaintiff’s insurance company for the flight. But the insurance did not cover the total balance, and a collection agency was retained to recover the unpaid amount. The plaintiff offered the collection agency $11,000 to settle the debt — which was rejected — and the plaintiff told the agency that he was working with the air ambulance service to resolve the issue and not to report the debt to the credit reporting agencies.
The debt was reported and the plaintiff was subsequently denied for a loan because of the negative item on his credit report. The plaintiff filed suit against the air ambulance service, the collection agency, and the credit reporting agencies, alleging they violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Using the ruling in Batterman v. BR Carroll Glenridge, IQ Data, Equifax Information Services, and TransUnion, Judge Corey Maze of the District Court for the Northern District of Alabama dismissed the FCRA claims against the defendants.
As for the FDCPA claim, the plaintiff’s lawsuit was filed two years after the debt was originally reported to the credit bureaus — well beyond the one-year statute of limitations to file an FDCPA lawsuit. The plaintiff attempted to argue that he didn’t know when the debt was reported and that the clock started running in 2019 when his credit report was updated, but the plaintiff had mentioned the 2018 date in three of his previous complaints. Judge Maze then decided that the plaintiff had received enough tries and dismissed the suit, denying the plaintiff the chance to file a fifth amended complaint.
