A District Court judge in Michigan has granted a defendant’s motion for summary judgment in a Fair Credit Reporting Act and Fair Debt Collection Practices Act case, ruling that the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence to support her claims. The defendant successfully argued that the plaintiff’s allegations were either factually unsupported or involved legal disputes that could not be resolved under the FDCPA.
The Background: The plaintiff received medical services from a physician back in 2017. The plaintiff was billed for a $50 copay related to an office visit. There is a disagreement between the plaintiff and the physician over what took place during that visit and whether a copay was incurred. The debt was placed with the defendant for collection in October 2020. The plaintiff disputed the debt, claiming she never received a bill and arguing that the office visit in question was not a billable encounter.
- The plaintiff filed suit, accusing the defendant of engaging in harassing and abusive conduct, misrepresenting the character and amount of the debt, and using unfair and unconscionable means to collect the debt. The plaintiff’s key argument was that a simple request for medical records would have shown that no billable office visit occurred, thus verifying her dispute.
- The defendant argued that the disputed debt involved unresolved questions about whether the medical visit was billable, which was a legal dispute outside the scope of the FDCPA. It also contended that it had reported the debt as disputed to credit reporting agencies and had verified the debt with the medical provider’s billing company.
The Ruling: Judge F. Kay Behm of the District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan determined that the plaintiff’s claims lacked factual support and involved legal disputes that could not be resolved under the FDCPA. Specifically, the court determined that:
- The allegedly inaccurate information regarding the medical debt was not “objectively and readily verifiable.” The court noted that the validity of the debt was a legal question about whether the December 6, 2017, encounter was a properly billable office visit, which the defendant was not required to resolve.
- The court dismissed the plaintiff’s claims under Sections 1692d, 1692e, and 1692f of the FDCPA. The judge ruled that the plaintiff did not provide specific facts to support her allegations of harassment, false representation, or unfair practices. Additionally, the court noted that the defendant reported the debt as disputed, undermining the plaintiff’s claim of false reporting.
- Judge Behm concluded that the plaintiff’s frustration with the debt being on her credit report did not constitute a violation of the FDCPA. The court emphasized that the FDCPA does not require debt collectors to resolve legal disputes about the validity of debts, which must be determined by a court of law.
