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.
Sometimes, a thing is a thing. And sometimes, a thing is something else. It’s usually never immediately clear whether it’s the former or the latter, so it’s possible this is nothing and it’s possible it’s something and it’s possible that it’s somewhere in between. A collection operation is facing claims it violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act because it attempted to collect on a medical debt that was incurred as a result of an on-the-job injury and was covered by workers’ compensation. You don’t see a lot of these kinds of suits in Pennsylvania, so I thought it was worth mentioning just for that. But, on top of the type of claim, the plaintiff did something interesting that you don’t see everyday, perhaps in an effort to give her standing to pursue the suit in federal court.
The background: The plaintiff, who was training to be a psychologist, was injured by a patient this past January. The patient struck the plaintiff’s head multiple times, put her in a headlock, and pushed her to the ground. The plaintiff was treated for her injuries.
- In August, the plaintiff received a “collection letter” from the defendant, attempting to collect on a $1,725.35 debt that was allegedly owed to the healthcare facility that treated her after her altercation.
- The letter, which was not included as part of the complaint, was designed to “as a demand for payment, indicating to consumers like Plaintiff that an outstanding balance was owed and payment was due on the debt,” according to the complaint.
- Receiving the letter forced the plaintiff to “spend valuable time” consulting with her workers’ compensation attorney during a workday to confirm she was still covered by insurance because she feared she had lost her coverage.
- But even after consulting with the attorney, and this is where things get interesting, the plaintiff then made a partial payment on the debt. The suit claims the billing issue was causing the plaintiff “significant stress and concern.”
The claims: The complaint accuses the defendant of violating Section 1692e(2)(A), 1692e(10), and 1692f(1) of the FDCPA because it misinterpreted the legal status of the debt and attempted to collect a debt that the plaintiff did not owe.
