EDITOR’S NOTE: This article is part of a series that is sponsored by WebRecon. WebRecon identifies serial plaintiffs lurking in your database BEFORE you contact them and expose yourself to a likely lawsuit. Protect your company from as many as one in three new consumer lawsuits by scrubbing your consumers through WebRecon first. Want to learn more? Call (855) WEB-RECON or email admin@webrecon.net today! Thanks to WebRecon for sponsoring this series.
DISCLAIMER: This article is based on a complaint. The defendant has not responded to the complaint to present its side of the case. The claims mentioned are accusations and should be considered as such until and unless proven otherwise.
A plaintiff has accused two healthcare providers and a collection operation ion California of violating the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by attempting to collect on debts that were allegedly incurred after the plaintiff was hurt while working, which would make the claims covered by the state’s worker’s compensation program.
A copy of the complaint, filed in the District Court for the Southern District of California, can be accessed using case number 23-cv-00304 or by clicking here.
Last August, the plaintiff was injured in a work-related accident and was transported to a local hospital. The plaintiff told the hospital he was injured while working and shared the name of his employer, according to the complaint.
In October, the hospital sent the plaintiff a collection letter. Two months later, the plaintiff received another letter, this time from the collection agency named as a defendant in the suit.
The plaintiff’s worker’s compensation attorney told the plaintiff he was not responsible for the medical bills, but receiving “repeated” letters led him to doubt his attorney, according to the complaint.
The complaint also alleges that the plaintiff is disabled as a result of the accident and has not regained full use of his hand.
The complaint accuses all three defendants of violating the RFDCPA and the collection agency of violating Sections 1692d, 1692e, 1692e(2)(A), 1692e(10), 1692f, and 1692f(1) of the FDCPA by attempting to collect on a debt that was not eligible to be collected.
Interestingly enough, the second count of the complaint accused CMRE of violating the FDCPA, when the name of the agency is referred to as CCB everywhere else throughout the complaint.
