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 is facing a lawsuit in a Florida federal court accusing it of parking a debt and allegedly ignoring a validation request and multiple credit disputes on a medical debt the consumer says he never owed. On top of that, when the plaintiff contacted the healthcare provider directly, the provider allegedly confirmed that nothing was owed for any services received, according to the complaint.
The background: The plaintiff claims he first learned of the alleged medical debt not from a letter or a phone call, but from his own credit reports.
- Several months ago, the plaintiff noticed the defendant reporting an alleged medical debt on his credit reports as being in default and in collections, according to the complaint.
- The plaintiff did not recognize the debt and claims he never received any communication from the defendant about it, whether in writing or by phone.
- In October 2025, the plaintiff sent the defendant a validation request via certified mail, asking that all collection efforts cease until the debt was verified. The defendant allegedly never responded and continued reporting the debt.
- The plaintiff says he contacted the healthcare provider directly, which confirmed he owed no balance for any services received.
- The plaintiff disputed the tradeline with two of the credit reporting agencies on multiple occasions, most recently in March 2026, but both bureaus confirmed the accuracy of the reporting. The defendant, according to the complaint, never conducted a reasonable investigation of the disputes.
- The plaintiff claims the reporting cost him credit opportunities, lowered his credit score, and caused emotional distress, ultimately forcing him to retain counsel.
The claims: The complaint brings counts under both the Fair Credit Reporting Act and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
- Under the FCRA, the defendant is accused of violating Sections 1681s-2(b)(1)(A) through (E) by failing to reasonably investigate the disputes after receiving notice of them from the credit bureaus, failing to review the information provided, failing to report the results of any investigation, and failing to correct, delete, or block the allegedly inaccurate tradeline.
- Under the FDCPA, the defendant is accused of violating Sections 1692e, 1692e(8), and 1692e(10) by continuing to report credit information it knew or should have known was false.
- The complaint also accuses the defendant of violating Section 1006.30(a) of Regulation F by furnishing information about the debt to the credit reporting agencies before speaking with the plaintiff or mailing a letter reasonably designed to reach him.
