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.
Have you ever played the pronoun game? Where you hide the identity of someone by using a neutral pronoun or use “we” instead of “she and I”? Now, I understand that the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act is a strict-liability statute, but it seemed worth pointing out the pronoun game in this complaint, along with the ambiguity that plaintiffs and their attorneys sometimes use. A collection operation and a healthcare provider in Florida are facing claims they violated the FDCPA and the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act by communicating directly with an individual who was represented by an attorney.
The background: The plaintiff, described as “a senior, veteran and/or disabled person” (and/or? There’s some uncertainty as to the plaintiff’s disability?) was sent a letter by a healthcare provider back in 2024 about an unpaid debt.
- The plaintiff’s attorney sent the healthcare provider — one of the defendants — a letter, saying the plaintiff’s only source of income was “social security, veterans’ benefits, or other federally protected sources” (there’s that “or” again), and that the plaintiff was represented by an attorney, and that the plaintiff was suffering from financial difficulties and wished the defendant to cease and desist communications.
- The healthcare provider allegedly sent another letter to the plaintiff, after which the plaintiff’s attorney sent another letter back to the provider.
- The provider then sent two more letters to the plaintiff, before placing the account with a collection agency, also named as a defendant.
- The collection agency sent a letter to the plaintiff attempting to collect on the debt.
- The plaintiff’s attorney then “had to inform, Defendant again in writing” that the plaintiff was represented and wished the “Defendant” to cease communication. It’s not clear whether the defendant in this claim refers to the collection agency or the healthcare provider.
The claims: The healthcare provider is accused of violating the FCCPA by contacting an individual in connection with the collection of an alleged debt despite knowledge that the plaintiff was represented by an attorney.
- The complaint also accuses the collection operation of violating the FDCPA and FCCPA by communicating with the plaintiff in connection with the collection of an alleged debt despite knowing the plaintiff was represented by an attorney.
