The trickle of lawsuits filed against companies in the accounts receivable management industry for allegedly violating Regulation F is continuing, with a case filed in California against a collection law firm and a healthcare provider.
A copy of the complaint in the case of Wilson-Albright v. Rash Curtis & Associates and Community Hospital of the Monterey Peninsula can be accessed by clicking here.
The plaintiff went to the hospital for a follow-up visit after being treated at the facility. The plaintiff had been prescribed a “habit forming medication to manage his pain” according to the complaint, and he told the doctor during the appointment that he was suffering from withdrawal symptoms. The doctor allegedly refused to treat the plaintiff and ordered him to leave the facility, according to the complaint.
Last December, the collection law firm mailed the plaintiff a notice attempting to collect on a debt that was owed from the visit where the plaintiff was refused treatment. After mailing the notice, the defendant also started call the plaintiff on his cell phone. The problem? The plaintiff had changed his number after visiting the hospital for the follow-up appointment and had never provided the facility or the law firm with his new number, according to the complaint.
The plaintiff allegedly requested all calls to cease and that he wanted to only communicate in writing with the defendant. The defendant allegedly placed a call to the plaintiff’s place of employment and spoke with a coworker. The defendant allegedly told the coworker that they were trying to contact the plaintiff regarding the hospital and asked the plaintiff to return the call.
The plaintiff is accusing the defendant of violating Sections 1692b(2), 1692c(a)(1), and 1692f of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Section 1788.17 of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and Section 1006.6 of Regulation F for allegedly contacting the plaintiff’s place of employment knowing it was inconvenient for the plaintiff to receive phone calls.
