Roadie

Members
  • Content Count

    74
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

10 Good

About Roadie

  • Rank
    Newbie
  1. To Hotwheels: The dates for the two surgeries are two weeks apart, not a month apart. .....in demanding validation, its true they provided an itemized listing of services, but only for the 3-30-2011 surgical date (this references to the $970 contested amount).... They omitted providing the itemized listing of services for the 3-15-2011 surgical date (this references to the $540 account, and this very account is paid for, yet its still lumped together and in the hands of this CA... This is the fdcpa violation I was wondering about since the $540 account has no business being in the han
  2. Hi, I'll keep this short and to the point: State: OklahomaIssue: Insurance balance and potential of "balance billing" Background to Medical detail: (a) Surgery: Left sided Total Knee replacement (TKR) during March, 2011. (1) 1st TKR surgery done 3-15-11. (a) Post-Insurance balance, for surgery done 3-15-2011:...............$540 (2) 2nd TKR surgery done 3-30-2011 to "debride" infected knee (a) Post-Insurance balance, for surgery done 3-30-2011:...............$970 [original knee-prothesis was
  3. I do hear ya on this matter, Coltfan, and my inexperience in this legal landmine doesn't want to get them enough rope to move for MSJ. Now I see if I do give them enough rope, the MSJ might be moved to the backburner, technically allowing me enough time to get in my arguments for SOL. This is counter-intuitive, where one, like myself, is taught to hold your cards close to your vest. Gonna work on those opening statements when I get my affirmative defense "ducks lined up " first. Will post that "revision" on this forum, here when draft is completed and its ready for further critical rev
  4. (a) taking the first one out, is beginning to make the responses less "snarkier" (ha). Nevertheless, paragraph has been modified. Several of you CIC'ers have pointed the same thing out, So Im taking the whole paragraph out instead of just that singular line, and now working on replacing placed it with another paragraph, fleshing it out with affirmative defenses listed in the "Answer-to-the-petition". This has been a valuable learning tool for "writing clearly, and writing well" with an eye to supporting my answers with either a citation or other document intended to be submitted into cour
  5. .... been getting that hammered into me lately! Helpful criticism certainly is well taken roadie
  6. Evidence? Nada. The only thing that came with the summons, originally, was the confounded "affidavit" which I attacked in the 'rogs submitted to Plaintiff.... I like the phrase "yet proven to exist". and will also add "denial" to make it a confirmed denial so it wont be inadvertently switched to an "admission". Im learning, everyone's making sure I don't play with those "cant confirm\cant deny" lines. Ive changed rog-2 to read as: (effective 4-5-2013) ...." Defendant states that Plaintiff's interrogatory #2 is of premature speculation in that it requests defendant, prior to completion of d
  7. Seadragon, that makes sense, from the perspective of "any vague answer" = the equivalent of "admitted". Ok, I fixed admission #2 to "denied", and Im thinking perhaps admission #4 should also be "denied" ? All those 4 denials then led to "rog-4", wanting me to "write the actual truth of the matter". Well, Coltfan's "I don't owe you a legal penny" makes sense (not in those words, I know, ha) About those "affirmatives" your mentioning, are you talking about "rog-6"?... if yes, then okay, makes sense not to let them have a reason to file an MSJ... I'll work on its revision, not sure how I'll
  8. Coltfan, ya referring to "rog-2" when I mentioned premature speculation? Or to "rog-6" where theyre asking me about my defense plans at trial to be raised? ".... eh, "Im not legally liable to the Plaintiff"... short and sweet.... I'll consider adding those to ongoing revisions! roadie
  9. Spikey, I appreciate you pointing this out for "rog-6", at the moment, Im gonna stick my neck out and say "yes" but having legal inexperiences and sometimes a tired mind is grounds for double checking my Oklahoma Discovery code procedures. I'll doublecheck on this and get back to you. Again, appreciate pointing this out, as I said, I don't want to be shooting myself in the foot! ... and besides each critical query can only motivate me do a better job! roadie
  10. Hi, BV... (a) Fixed #3... regarding 'rog-2'..."premature speculation"... this question is being asked prior to completion of discovery so isn't that grounds for "premature speculation" until Midland's lawyers answer my Rogs\Admissions\RFPD's? [c] regarding "rog-4".... so I just use the same paragraphs Ive employed in the Admissions section? and leave it at that? I thought the rog-4 wanted me to explain to them my "show me the evidence " position [ Why? Cuz my OC is still reporting a balance instead of $0" ] and Midland states they bought the account almost a year ago so me thinks the
  11. Holy cow!... this situation is similar to the one being faced in Oklahoma where the SOL isn't quite so clear (cant find caselaw to buffer against Midland, but ColtFan's approach is what Im looking for, too. IM gonna pirate some of this and drill it into my head to shift the issue away from "written contract". Ive got potential problems with that too, as Bruno kindly pointed out to me earlier last week. Roadie
  12. Common sense would speak to that fact, indeedy Note: Today, Wednesday, April 3, 2013, I went back into page one to take out the "old" answers of the discovery set intended to be sent to Plaintiff (Midland)... the new "answers" are now online for evaluation and assessment, will you guys please see if Im shooting myself in the foot? By the way, Discovery has to be completed by April 15 according to scheduling orders, so I presume I'll send out this weekend if assessment here goes well. Thanks, everyone. Roadie
  13. Hi SeaDragon, point taken... I was playing it close to the vest as you pointed out, but that's because the law office of L.B.N. are equally dirty (my consumer perception speaking out) But more to the point, IM letting everyone know IM spending today (Easter Sunday, ha) taking out the objections, and revising my answers (while maintaining the truth, of course) I can already see I have a few sticky points, example: How to answer the question "did you obtain credit on the account referenced in petition"....petition is referencing "Dell's" account number Hmmmm. Im sure I'll come across somet
  14. Thank you, Nascar, Tulsa, Okla is two hours north of me. Im keeping this reference. I have sent him an email to this effect. Roadie