The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has upheld a summary judgment ruling in favor of a medical provider that was sued for violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act because it allegedly attempted to collect a debt using a name other than its own, even though the letter includes seven separate references to the provider.
A copy of the ruling in the case of Rubin v. Montefiore Medical Center can be accessed by clicking here.
The plaintiff received a collection letter from the defendant. The return address said the letter was from Tele-Computer Systems and included a tear-off portion for submitting a payment which indicated that the payment should and would be sent to Tele-Computer Systems.
But the letter also included a number of references to the provider itself, including a URL — www.mychart.montefiore.com — to which the plaintiff could make a payment, a phone number, which, when called, is answered with the message, “Thank you for calling the business office of Montefiore,” and a reference to “please call us” if the plaintiff wanted information on “Montefiore’s Financial Assistance program.”
The plaintiff argued that this letter is different than other ones he received from the defendant, but the Appeals Court rules that “even the least sophisticated consumer would not be deceived into believing the letter comes from anyone but Montefiore.”
The plaintiff cited Maguire v. Citicorp Retail Services as a precedent, but the letter in that case did not mention the creditor at all. As well, when the number listed in that letter was called, the creditor’s name was not part of the initial message.
“This is sharply different from the facts here, where the letter mentions Montefiore multiple times and upon calling the number listed, the caller is immediately told that they have reached Montefiore’s business office,” the Appeals Court wrote. “The allegations of deceptive conduct are simply insufficient to satisfy the least sophisticated consumer standard.”
