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 collection operation has been included in a class-action lawsuit alleging it violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and state law in Ohio over attempts to collect on an unpaid medical debt that the plaintiff claims was mis-coded by the healthcare provider, which has also been named as a defendant in the lawsuit.
The background: Back in February 2024, the plaintiff visited a new physician for an initial office visit. As part of the visit, clinical staff at the office conducted a “15-second, non-imaging bladder scan” of the plaintiff along with taking other routine vital sign measurements.
- The plaintiff was then billed as part of her health insurance deductible for $716, which broke down to $357 for the office visit and $359 for “outpatient services” under a surgical code.
- The plaintiff contacted the healthcare provider to dispute the charges, and an administrative staff member confirmed that the billing was accurate.
- In October 2025, the plaintiff received a notification that the collection operation was furnishing information about the unpaid debt to the credit reporting agencies.
- The defendant’s reporting of the debt to the credit bureaus caused the plaintiff’s credit score to decrease, consumed her insurance deductible, and caused the plaintiff emotional distress, anxiety, and frustration.
The claims: The suit accuses the healthcare provider of violating the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, along with violating the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act, along with fraud and breach of contract.
- The suit also accuses the collection operation of violating Sections 1692e, 1692e(2)(A), 1692e(8), 1692f, and 1692g of the FDCPA for allegedly falsely representing that the debt was valid and enforceable, and for attempting to collect a debt it knew or should have known was fraudulent, and for failing to cease collection activities after the debt had been disputed.
- The collection operation is also accused of violating the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act.
- The suit seeks to include any patients of the healthcare provider defendants who were billed for services rendered at this specific provider using a specific billing code for OR Services as a primary billing code when the services received were actually performed in a clinical office setting and did not constitute a surgical procedure.
