CA changed Sis's CR

[sunset]

Hi everyone! Sis called me today and we were talking about what I've been doing for DH. She told me that last year, she got a call from a CA for a $162medical bill which was supposed to be paid by workmans comp.

Yes, it's on her reports; I forgot to ask who the CA was.

She got called by this CA (last year) and she told the CA it was workman's comp. The CA told her she was still responsible for the bill. Sis replied she is not responsible for the bill and and the only way she would be responsible was if she had been making pmts on it. The CA told her that was true.

When Sis checked her reports a few months later, her report had been updated to show she was paying on the bill, making her responsible and leaving her old job off the hook.

She hasn't done anything about it because she doesn't know what to do. And honestly, I don't either.

Your advice is appreciated.

[LUEser]

Sounds like an unscrupulous CA to me. But I tend to assume the worst from then.

First, she needs to be absolutely positive there was no payment made by her.

If the CRAs are showing a payment, then she can dispute with them, stating she made no payment.

Then, she should contact the CA and see when the payment was made and for how much.

There have been stories on here that a CA would make a payment for the debtor in order to toll the SOL or in your case, make it look as if the debt was a personal liability. Look for people mentioning ghost payments.

If you can prove that the CA faked the payment, then forget the FDCPA, you most likely have a case for flat out fraud.

[Ahntara]

Sis needs to research her state's WC laws. In Florida, it's forbidden to hold the patient liable for anything WC-related. Here it wouldn't matter if she made a payment, by accident, or not; nor would SOL. WC is in a category all to itself. Perhaps, in her state, it's that way also...

[sunset]

She never made a pmt because she knows she's not responsible. She said her recent CR still states she's making pmts, but she said... "If I were making pmts, wouldn't it be less than $162 or even paid off by now?!" I agree with her.

She lives in PA (I'm in GA).

[swirlgirl]

Does she have anything from the employer saying work comp would cover the charge? Does she have any records from the doctor showing how it was billed?

[sunset]

Now that... I couldn't tell ya. I'll check with her tomorrow, cuz I doubt she'll call me tonight cuz she's out.

[sunset]

From what I understand, when she injured herself at work, she went to see the WC dr but didn't get the statement because he said it would go to the company.

Meanwhile, company fired her while she was on medical leave.

Sis got a lawyer, sued the company and got $ plus they had to pay med bills.

She asked for transcript of proceedings, but small claims only provided her with one paragraph of the proceedings and it did not mention anything about the company paying the med bills.

She got a call from CA stating she was responsible for the med bill. Sis later found out her CR was changed from 'collections' to 'paying as agreed' or 'paying installments' or something like that. (she is requesting another report from the CRA's)

She contacted her lawyer about this bill. He won't return her calls. She asked another atty to call him, but he wants paid to make the phone call.... some outrageous amount of $ which she doesn't have.

She is going to call the Reading PA courthouse with the date of the trial and request complete copy of the court order (she thought she only needed the transcript... and nothing is in it regarding work paying for it).

The company she had worked for is now belly up.

The ins company that her employer retained is now belly up.

Her lawyer isn't returning her phone calls. He is in Reading about 50 mi away from her.

And, she can't remember the CA's name. (she'll find this out when she gets her new CR's).

That's all I know so far.

[Ahntara]

What do her state's laws say about WC? Depending on the specifics, the other details shouldn't matter. SHE, as the injured person covered under state WC laws, isn't liable for medical bills (at least in the states I'm familar with).

If she gets distracted by the date of firing, or her former employer going out of business or anything else, the CA will continue to bother her. Stop it all by going back to basics. Then, once liability is properly re-established, she can work on her CR and obtain a removal letter. I'd suggest she bypass attorneys, for now. Research & read the laws herself.

[flacorps]

Look for people mentioning ghost payments.

The searchable term is "phantom payment", although it's possible a few people have called 'em ghost payments.

[sunset]

Thank you both. She sent me a copy of the webpage which shows the accct is in dispute- reported by subscriber. I th ink she disputed online.

I don't see anything about paying.... it says it's 'open'.

On the bottom of the page though, where it shows pmt history.... from June 2006 to Apr 08 it's in green and says 'ok'. May 2008 is red, and says 'KD'.

It also stsates 'credit grantor cannot locate consumer' and she's been in the same place for 4 yrs.

[flacorps]

It also stsates 'credit grantor cannot locate consumer' and she's been in the same place for 4 yrs.

That's called a "skip notation" and it's a killer that will keep virtually anyone from granting her new credit. They'll do it when they can't make a "right party" contact regardless of whether the debtor is right where the bureaus say the debtor is (after all, how is the CA to know if they can't make a "right party" contact).

[sunset]

They're evil. Just evil. And should be punished.

[sunset]

for the pmt history... all the green 'ok's from June 06 to Apr 08. Would that be considered as the phantom/ghost pmts? Were they reporting this as being paid?

It's red for May 08.

[flacorps]

for the pmt history... all the green 'ok's from June 06 to Apr 08. Would that be considered as the phantom/ghost pmts? Were they reporting this as being paid?

It's red for May 08.

They're causing it to report as more freshly delinquent than an old, burned out account. Something that's reporting as "9" (I9, R9, what have you) doesn't do your score as much damage after a while versus something that's in a "5" status ... and by rejiggering the TL monthly they can keep it perpetually in a "5" status. It'll be red for May next month.