Jump to content

Inaccurate Dental Billing Collection


QM07
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hello Everyone:

My girlfriend recently required a crown after having had an oral exam at the dentist this past June. With build-up cleaning, x-rays, etc. the total cost for crowning the tooth was to be $1249, of which the dentist approximated a patient responsibility after customary 50% insurance coverage to be $647.

My girlfriend informed the dentist that she would be unable to afford that amount, and was exploring the option to have the tooth temporarily filled until she could afford to have a crown put on in the future.

A woman from their front office came into the back exam room and began pitching my girlfriend dental credit cards, finance plans, etc. After expressing a disinterest in utilizing any of those methods, the office clerk went to speak to the dentist in the back room. She returned and informed my girlfriend that the dentist would be willing to perform the necessary dental work for a total of $842 as opposed to the original $1249. Of which, the estimated total patient responsibility would be $405 after insurance.

The woman went so far as to provide her with a computer-generated printout which itemized the original $1,249 worth of dental work (and relevant procedures listed above) to show her the original cost in comparison to that which the dentist was willing to do this work for. She then hand-wrote a written agreement which indicated each individual procedure to be performed and the cost of such. It went as follows:

Exam $30

X-Ray $11

Crown $688

Buildup $123

TOTAL $852

Est. Patient Responsibility $405.

She required her to sign this agreement indicating that she would have the work done for $852 as opposed to $1249. This offer to save approx. $200 on the total patient responsibility after insurance motivated her to have the work done the following week.

After having had the work done, they provided her with a second written statement indicating an est. patient responsibility of $405 (estimated from the $852 worth of work) and indicated a payment plan of $145 per month on this amount after her upfront payment of $100 that day.

About a month later, we received the explanation of benefits from her insurance provider. Instead of charging the agreed upon $852, the dentist submitted a claim for $1249 to the insurance company in contrast to the written agreement. The dentist also sent her a bill for approx. $952 (the amount her insurance did not cover because this dentist charges above the accepted maximum for crowns -- another story altogether).

She contacted the dentist regarding the billing issue and was met with resistance from their desk clerk who apparently had forgotten about the written agreement to perform the work for $852. In the interim, while looking through our files for the original agreement from nearly two months ago (which we do possess), they sent her account to a local attorney debt collector who has begun aggressively pursuing the account.

Unfortunately, she was caught off guard by their phone call and tried to explain to them that the dentist submitted the claim in the incorrect amount and her account needed to be fixed. Of course, the collector had no interest in this and hung up the phone on her. The following day, she received a letter with a copy of her billing statement from the dentist indicating the incorrect amount. This letter was not an initial dunning letter (based on the verbiage) and simply stated:

"We hope this resolves the issue"

It did not contain the required dispute verbiage that a first communication should. Further, I am unsure as to how to respond to this, and whether I should provide the collector with a copy of the written agreement indicating the work would be done for $852 and that the dentist is charging the incorrect amount. We have also sent a letter to the dentist with the written agreement requesting they resubmit the claim to insurance for the appropriate amount.

Any insight or assistance you may be able to offer in holding off the collector until the issue is resolved directly with the dentist will be sincerely appreciated and greatly valued.

Sincerely

QM07

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest usctrojanalum

The following day, she received a letter with a copy of her billing statement from the dentist indicating the incorrect amount. This letter was not an initial dunning letter (based on the verbiage) and simply stated:

"We hope this resolves the issue"

this is because your girlfriend disputed the validity of the debt over the phone (which she is allowed to do) and the attorneys office provided validation of the debt.

It did not contain the required dispute verbiage that a first communication should.

It did not need to, the debt was already disputed they were providing validation.

Further, I am unsure as to how to respond to this, and whether I should provide the collector with a copy of the written agreement indicating the work would be done for $852 and that the dentist is charging the incorrect amount. We have also sent a letter to the dentist with the written agreement requesting they resubmit the claim to insurance for the appropriate amount.

How good is this agreement? Is it written on a post it note? Or is it written on a piece of stationary that cotains the dentists letterhead, signatures and names clearly defined etc?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello usctrojanalum:

Thank you for following up in reference to my inquiry as I do appreciate your time and consideration in sharing your insights. That being said, the agreement is written on a computer-generated printout which contains the dentist's letterhead, as you've mentioned.

Furthermore, the particular procedures to be conducted, the prices at which they are to be billed, and my girlfriend's signature are all very clearly defined as you've pointed out is necessary.

On that note, I am a bit confused with some of the statements you've made, as they appear contrary to FDCPA statutes. I will appreciate any clarification yourself, or other members, may be able to offer in this regard.

this is because your girlfriend disputed the validity of the debt over the phone (which she is allowed to do) and the attorneys office provided validation of the debt.

FDCPA 809(a) states that:

(a) Within five days after the initial communication with a consumer in connection with the collection of any debt, a debt collector shall, unless the following information is contained in the initial communication or the consumer has paid the debt, send the consumer a written notice containing

(3) a statement that unless the consumer, within thirty days after receipt of the notice, disputes the validity of the debt, or any portion thereof, the debt will be assumed to be valid by the debt collector;

(4) a statement that if the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, the debt collector will obtain verification of the debt or a copy of a judgment against the consumer and a copy of such verification or judgment will be mailed to the consumer by the debt collector; and

(5) a statement that, upon the consumer's written request within the thirty-day period, the debt collector will provide the consumer with the name and address of the original creditor, if different from the current creditor.

No where in section 809, nor in the entirety of the FDCPA does it state that, should the consumer dispute verbally during initial communication, the debt collector is relieved of their duty under 809(a)

Additionally, the FDCPA 809(B) requires disputes be done in writing.

Although I am simply concerned with the manner through which to handle the collector while we work with the dentist, and not FDCPA violations, everything is a learning process and therefore I thought it would be productive to raise this question.

Again, I sincerely appreciate your kindness in sharing your thoughts.

Sincerely,

QM07

Edited by QM07
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest usctrojanalum

(3) a statement that unless the consumer, within thirty days after receipt of the notice, disputes the validity of the debt, or any portion thereof, the debt will be assumed to be valid by the debt collector;

The debt was already disputed, the attorney need not send a notice "do you dispute the debt" when it already was disputed, it makes no sense logically.

(4) a statement that if the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, the debt collector will obtain verification of the debt or a copy of a judgment against the consumer and a copy of such verification or judgment will be mailed to the consumer by the debt collector; and

Again the debt was dipusted and they sent verifcation. It does not have to be in writing google "Jerman v Carlisle"

(5) a statement that, upon the consumer's written request within the thirty-day period, the debt collector will provide the consumer with the name and address of the original creditor, if different from the current creditor.

And from the information you provided, this part was satisfied.

Additionally, the FDCPA 809(B) requires disputes be done in writing.

Google that supreme court case I mentioned earlier.

Now, with regard to the written agreement that is good. Send it on over to the dentist's attorney and show him that you were told the responsibilty was only going to be $405. The dentist may counter with yes, we offered her that discount if the bill was paid off within X amount of time. If your girlfriend got that discount as a courtesy but took a year to pay it off, she would not be entitled to that discount.

The part with insurance is interesting because it's not as easy as "submit the bill for $850" There are rules, procedures, and codes governing how medical providers and insurance companies do business. They sign contracts with

eachother and things have to be done a certain way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The part with insurance is interesting because it's not as easy as "submit the bill for $850" There are rules, procedures, and codes governing how medical providers and insurance companies do business. They sign contracts with

eachother and things have to be done a certain way.

Not necessarily. If this is a PPO or HMO type insurance, yes, but if it is just an indemnity plan that pays 50% of up to "reasonable and customary" charges, the doctor could certainly charge the $850 if he chose. Apparently this dentist charges $100 more than what the insurance company considers "reasonable and customary" for a crown so the patient is billed for half of the reasonable and customary charge plus the $100.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The dentist may counter with yes, we offered her that discount if the bill was paid off within X amount of time. If your girlfriend got that discount as a courtesy but took a year to pay it off, she would not be entitled to that discount.

The dental work was performed on 6/21/2010. First payment of $100 was made on 6/21/2010. It has been approximately 30 days since last payment.

On that note, I'm having trouble making sense of your opinion.

Whenever any form of medical or dental work is performed, a specific price is charged for the procedures conducted. The dentist (or doctor) submits the bill to the patient's insurance company. In this case, the bill was to be submitted.

If the dentist agreed to crown a tooth for $842, and a week later submits a charged bill for $1249 to the insurance company, this is contrary to the written agreement.

The part with insurance is interesting because it's not as easy as "submit the bill for $850" There are rules, procedures, and codes governing how medical providers and insurance companies do business. They sign contracts with

eachother and things have to be done a certain way.

This is not relevant, however. A practicing dentist is wholly familiar with insurance billing practices. If charging $842 for a crown (which is within customary pricing) would be a potential problem for the dentist, then he wouldn't have (and shouldn't have) entered into a written agreement with my girlfriend to perform the work, and submit the bill, to the insurance company at this price.

In fact, the particular doctor/ins. co. agreements you're referencing typically consist of the insurance company negotiating discounted pricing on procedures, not vice versa. If anything, it would have had a positive impact in this case should it have been relevant. It should be of note that her PPO, Aetna, considers no greater than $900 to be customary charges for a crown.

In our old city, she has had a tooth crowned for $800 through her current PPO at Aetna. There is no issue in submitting a bill for this amount for that type of work.

Edited by QM07
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello usctrojanalum:

I appreciate your time and consideration in answering my questions and providing this opinion. On that note, do you feel I posted this thread in the inappropriate forum sub-category?

I've recognized that perhaps it would have been better suited for the Collection sub-category. My main concern is sending the written agreement to the CA, as over the years, I have developed a strong sensitivity to communicating with them and never admitting responsibility for anything.

I was hoping others may be able to offer specific insight into whether I should send the agreement or generally dispute the debt as the amount currently stands without sending it.

Sincerely,

QM07

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The dentist office did nothing wrong in submitting the full amount to insurance as their contract with insurance allows them to charge an agreed upon amount.

As for the written agreement to accept less for the patient responsibility portion, they are obligated to do so. In deference to usctrojanalum, unless there is specific language on the agreement stating that the offer had limited time for payment, they would have to honor it regardless of how long it took to pay. It is a flat out agreement for services at a set price.

My suggestion is that she send the colelction attorney a copy of the paperwork with a cover letter indicating that she has already made an up front payment on the agreed amount and that the dentist office agreed to payments on a specific schedule (if that is true). Then explain rather simply that continued collection action while the agreement is being followed and for amounts in excess of the agreement may result in legal action against his client. State that you understand errors can happen and that as a lawyer he is only doing that which he was hired to do, but in this case his client has made a mistake.

If the lawyer continues or responds in a manner that seems he has not taken to heart that his client has made a mistake, send one more letter to the attorney indicating that a complaint ot the Bar will be filed and legal action is possible if the harassment continues while the terms of the agreement are being honored.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The dentist office did nothing wrong in submitting the full amount to insurance as their contract with insurance allows them to charge an agreed upon amount.

Hello Methuss, thanks for your time in responding. That said, I am a bit confused about this. The written agreement entered upon by the dentist did not simply stipulate that they would accept *less* for the *patient responsibility portion*.

It directly indicated that the dental work would be conducted and submitted to insurance for $842. Of this insurance submission, it was estimated that the patient responsibility would be $405.

I understand the dentist is able to submit a claim to the insurance company for whatever amount he chooses, pursuant to his agreement with said insurance company. However, such an action constitutes a violation of the written agreement he entered into with my girlfriend, which indicated he would charge and submit a *specific amount* ($842).

It was the total amount to be billed which was discounted via this agreement, and the estimated patient responsibility was thus decreased in proportion as a byproduct of this agreement.

My suggestion is that she send the colelction attorney a copy of the paperwork .....

Thank you for this thoughtful advice. I will help her to send a kindly worded letter further explaining the situation.

Again, thank you to everyone who has taken the time to share their opinions and insights in the spirit of helping myself and others.

Sincerely,

QM07

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, it is my humble opinion that the first written communication from the debt collection attorney violated the FDCPA in that it did not have the required wording from 809(a).

However, that is not the battle I would fight right now. Besides, the attorney may be exempt from the law if debt collection is not a substantial part of their business.

Based on this statement:

Unfortunately, she was caught off guard by their phone call and tried to explain to them that the dentist submitted the claim in the incorrect amount and her account needed to be fixed. Of course, the collector had no interest in this and hung up the phone on her.

I would not have any further dealings with these people. My letter would be a Cease Communication letter, with the further explanation "the dentist's claim is due to an error in billing, and I will work directly with the dentist's office to resolve it."

Then, if this attorney files a lawsuit, I would file a counterclaim for the FDCPA violation.

Good luck,

DH

PS. Reading Methuss' post more thoroughly, I have reconsidered. His approach to deal with the attorney is probably better. DH

Edited by debtorshusband
Added PS with reconsideration
Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, it is my humble opinion that the first written communication from the debt collection attorney violated the FDCPA in that it did not have the required wording from 809(a).

PS. Reading Methuss' post more thoroughly, I have reconsidered. His approach to deal with the attorney is probably better. DH

Hi debtorshusband,

Thanks for responding and confirming Methuss' suggested course of action. Your time and consideration is appreciated, and we will be taking your valuable advice.

Sincerely,

QM07

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello everyone:

Here is a first draft of the letter I intend to submit to the collector. I'm unsure whether I should provide specific detail surrounding the situation as I have in this thread or to keep it simple. It should be of note that my first sentence references the fact that we received a letter from them today stating that they had included validation documents, but the envelope contained nothing but the 1-page letter. Any constructive criticism or suggestion is greatly appreciated and valued:

-----------------------

Thank you for your recent written communication dated August 25th (a copy of which I have enclosed for your reference). That being said, and although you expressed within this writing having included supplementary documentation pursuant to my prior request, your envelope did not contain such. The envelope I received contained only your 1-page letter as enclosed. That being said, it will be very important I reiterate, as we discussed on the telephone, that you are attempting to collect an erroneous amount which is a byproduct of a billing error created by your client.

Your client entered into a written agreement to conduct specific dental work at a particular price. I have enclosed a copy of this written agreement for your reference and records. Unfortunately, it appears that your client has accidentally billed an amount far exceeding that which was agreed upon in writing. Furthermore, up-front payment as well as follow up payment has been remitted to your client in accordance to the referenced and enclosed written agreement.

I would like to express the fact that I do recognize and appreciate that errors do occur, and that you are merely engaging upon activity which you were commissioned to conduct. Therefore, I will genuinely appreciate your consideration in updating your records to reflect the fact that I am currently working alongside your client to resolve their billing error.

Your thoughtfulness in discontinuing unlawful collection activity for an amount exceeding that which was outlined within my written agreement with your client will be valued and respected. Any future attempted collection activity for an inaccurate amount in excess of that which was expressly agreed upon in writing by your client may result in my seeking civil remedy.

Sincerely,

QM07's Better Half

--------------------

*** I have created an optional paragraph I have considered including should the good member's offering their insight find it useful ****

This particular written agreement was entered upon due to my having expressed an inability to afford the dental work your client felt necessary. The standard total cost of this dental work is typically $1,249.00. Because of my particular financial situation, your client entered upon a written agreement to conduct this dental work for a total of $842. Furthermore, said written agreement specifically outlines the itemized, discounted pricing for each procedure which would constitute the entirety of the aforementioned work. Unfortunately, your client’s billing department seems to have overlooked consideration of our written agreement and has accidentally submitted a bill for the inappropriate amount disputed.

Edited by QM07
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have been following this with interest. Having worked at a medical clinic for almost 20 years, I am amazed that that dentist didn't immediately change the billing when they were notified you had IN WRITING, not once but TWICE (original agreement plus first statement) what they had agreed to bill for the procedure. Unless they can show that what they billed for included more than what was itemized in the estimate, sounds like you have them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your thoughtfulness in discontinuing unlawful collection activity for an amount exceeding that which was outlined within my written agreement with your client will be valued and respected. Any future attempted collection activity for an inaccurate amount in excess of that which was expressly agreed upon in writing by your client may result in my seeking civil remedy.

I would leave this part out. It will only serve to antagonize the lawyer.

If this lawyer regularly does collections as his primary practice area, he is well aware that collecting an amount in excess of the written agreement is not legal. No need to rub his nose in it. Besides, if he turns out to be "one of those" kinds of lawyers, playing possum with knowledge of your rights gives him plenty of rope to hang himself with.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
I would leave this part out. It will only serve to antagonize the lawyer.

If this lawyer regularly does collections as his primary practice area, he is well aware that collecting an amount in excess of the written agreement is not legal. No need to rub his nose in it. Besides, if he turns out to be "one of those" kinds of lawyers, playing possum with knowledge of your rights gives him plenty of rope to hang himself with.

Hi Methuss & inthesticks:

Thanks for responding to my threat, it is greatly appreciated. Unfortunately, I had already sent out the letter last week prior to having read your post. On that note, the attorney's office did receive it. They had also received a general FDCPA dispute letter about 4 days prior as an initial measure.

Yesterday afternoon, the collection attorney made two phone calls and left a voicemail for my girlfriend, despite verbiage in the original dispute instructing them they are never to contact via telephone and engage only in written correspondence. Two clear cut FDCPA breaches. The voice mail left was very general, and stating he received "response" from his client and requested she call him back. I may write a follow up letter along the lines of that which was suggested if the attorney responded unfavorably.

On another note, we did contact the dentist office on 9/8 via telephone to determine if they had reviewed our letter and considered an appropriate remedy. The clerk informed her that she spoke with the dentist and that they were resubmitting the claim to Aetna.

However, we received a written letter today dated 9/7 in contradiction to what was said on the telephone the day after the letter was dated. Within the letter they attempted to justify the amount billed and disputed the origin of the hand written agreement at the bottom. However, their logic was flawed, and the individual who wrote the letter displayed a disregard for the facts of the matter. I will follow up in a few hours, or tomorrow, with details regarding the letter and what I intend to write in response for those interested.

Sincerely,

QM07

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Hi everyone:

Wanted to update my thread after having both had a phone conversation with the dental office as well as received a written response. Further, collection attorney has simultaneously begun violating FDCPA with continued phone calls.

Letters were sent respectively to both dentist and collection attorney at the time of my last post. Standard Dispute letter to CA indicated not to engage in any further attempted telephone contact. Despite that, we received two phone calls from them immediately after their having received the dispute letter. In fact, the voicemail the CA left indicated he was calling in response to the dispute.

So, we phoned the dental office, who immediately indicated that they received the letter, spoke with the dentist, and would resubmit the claim to Aetna. We were very happy with this and awaited a new EOB from Aetna.

The day following, we received a formal written letter (was never mentioned in our phone conversation with the dentist) dated the day *prior* to the phone call we had with them. This letter spoke contrary to the phone conversation and indicated the $852.00 total hand-written at the bottom of the computer generated printout to be the 50% estimated patient responsibility provided by Aetna for the $1259.00 in dental work.

Clearly, the individual who wrote this letter did not spend much time evaluating the document, nor in considering what they've written, since that would be a mathematical impossibility ($852 is about 65% of $1295). Further, these hand-written figures were placed at the bottom of an originally computer-generated invoice which already indicated a total patient responsibility of $647.50 (50%) of the $1295. It was this $647 my girlfriend expressed not being able to afford, which motivated the creation of the hand-written price discount provisions in order to reduce the estimated patient responsibility into the $400s to solicit and retain her business.

Furthermore, and as we discussed earlier in the thread, the itemized procedures accounting for the $852 hand-written total deviate strongly from the customary 50% estimation figures universally used in dental offices.

I've formulated a written response to the dental office to point out these contradictions, and further clarify the situation. However, I tend to become overly "wordy", which can be counterproductive when dealing with someone who doesn't know how to divide numbers by 2. I will appreciate your input and constructive criticism regarding what is a yet to be completed response.

I am also considering to write back to the attorney, who has engaged in over 10 attempted phone calls since receiving the original written dispute and do not call statement. I might even scan a copy of the continually referenced invoice if helpful in soliciting advice from the community.

------------------

Thank you for following up in reference to my recent correspondence within your letter dated September 7, 2010. I do sincerely appreciate your time and consideration in addressing my ongoing concerns, however, the information you’ve outlined within your writing is inaccurate. The statements made within your writing contradict both what I was told within a recent telephone conversation with your office staff earlier this month as well as some of the situational facts which become obvious after clearly reviewing the previously included computer-generated price invoice which contained hand-written provisions at the bottom.

My new concern lie in the fact that, after having called your office earlier this month, I was warmly greeted by an individual who assured me that they had spoken with Dr. Farrell after having received my letter dated 8/22 and that all confusion had been clarified. Furthermore, a claim with Aetna Dental had been appropriately resubmitted. The tone of your letter seems to suggest I was provided inaccurate information. I will sincerely appreciate your follow up clarification in this regard.

Also, your statement that the hand-written agreement at the bottom portion of the computer-generated price invoice was the estimated patient responsibility for the originally quoted $1295.00 in dental work is contradictory to actual original pricing information contained within this document.

The particular document in question is the computer-generated printout on your office letterhead which clearly indicates an estimated patient responsibility of $647.50 in relation to the $1,295.00 in dental work which was to be performed. This is the 50% estimation quote Aetna dental provided your office. I have included second copy of this document (one was included within my 8/22 letter) within this correspondence. I have highlighted the appropriate line items indicating this patient responsibility estimation. The original computer generated printout quotes the following dental procedures and prices:

Crown $1149.00 – Patient responsibility: $574.50

Buildup $146.00 – Patient responsibility: $73.00

TOTAL: $1295 – Patient Responsibility $647.50

I feel it productive in reaching an accurate recollection of the agreement entered upon to reiterate the fact that, when originally presented with the computer generated printout informing me that I would have an estimated responsibility of $647.50, I informed office staff that I did not anticipate being able to afford this. As a result of that discussion, it was discussed with Dr. Farrell whether he would perform the work at and submit such at a discounted price in order to further reduce my responsibility estimate and allow me to afford having this work performed.

It was via this conversation that a new hand-written estimate was created at the bottom of the original printout. It would not make sense to create a new hand-written agreement indicating a more expensive estimated responsibility of $852.00 than the originally quoted $647.50 figure. Regardless of this fact, the itemized procedures and pricing indicated in hand-written fashion are completely devoid of any semblance to respective patient responsibility estimated (ie. 50%) and a complete contradiction to the originally estimated prices.

The $852.00 total indicated in writing at the bottom of this printout is the net total of the following itemizations, which were also hand-written:

Exam: $30.00 – was originally quoted without price. Not a portion of the originally quoted $1295.

X-Ray: $11.00 --- was originally quoted without price. Not a portion of the originally quoted $1295.

Crown $688.00 --- 59.8% of the total $1149.00 procedure.

Buildup: $123.00 – 84.2% of the total $146.00 procedure.

-----------------------

TOTAL: $852.00

In light of this, it is counter-intuitive to believe the $852.00 quote to be the estimated patient responsibility when considering all of the above-mentioned circumstances and the originally quoted $647.50 responsibility estimate (which is an accurate 50% of the $1295). However, the following is also worth noting:

1). You state within your letter in the second paragraph that the $852.00 total indicated in handwriting was the customary 50% patient responsibility quote from Aetna dental. However, this is a mathematical impossibility. $852.00 constitutes 62.75% of $1,295.00.

2). If it is suggested that the $852.00 is an estimated patient responsibility, then each of the itemized procedures and respective prices constituting this figure would indicate the estimated patient responsibility for each individual line item.

3). Therefore, your office is suggesting that you have indicated the estimated patient responsibility for the $1149 crown to be $688 despite the fact that the computer generated portion at the top of this document already indicates it to be $574.50. This is in stark contradiction to the originally quoted $574.50 (50%) estimation as generated by the computer-based invoice.

4). Your office is also suggesting that the estimated patient responsibility for the Buildup procedure is $123.00. This is a direct contradiction to the originally quoted 50% figure of

I believe it should be evident that it is the original computer-generated price quotes which indicate the customary 50% patient responsibility. The above outlined facts compound the reality of the fact that the hand-written portion at the bottom of this computer-generated invoice do not indicate an estimated patient responsibility, but rather, discounted procedure pricing to further reduce the originally quoted responsibility estimation as motivating factor to retain business.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is an update: The collection firm misrepresented themselves to be a law office. However, they are simply a collection agency with a name mimicking that of the standard law practice (Kross, Lieberman, & Stone).

The CA actually told my girlfriend they were a law firm. Upon further research, this is untrue.

Sincerely,

QM07

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is an update: The collection firm misrepresented themselves to be a law office. However, they are simply a collection agency with a name mimicking that of the standard law practice (Kross, Lieberman, & Stone).

The CA actually told my girlfriend they were a law firm. Upon further research, this is untrue.

Sincerely,

QM07

Violation of FDCPA. Sue them!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is an update: The collection firm misrepresented themselves to be a law office. However, they are simply a collection agency with a name mimicking that of the standard law practice (Kross, Lieberman, & Stone).

The CA actually told my girlfriend they were a law firm. Upon further research, this is untrue.

Sincerely,

QM07

If you have proof of this then you may sue for FDCPA violations and file a complaint witht he local Bar Association office that there is a collection agency impersonating a law office. All bar-registered lawyers are officers of the court which also makes such a claim a criminal issue.

If you don't have proof, then it is one person's word against another; and they will deny they said it at all.

On a slightly different note, the FDCPA is interpreted as being in favor of people that are below average in knowledge. That said it is not necessary under the FDCPA to prove they said they were a law firm, but only to show that what they did could lead a person to believe they were.

Edited by Methuss
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
Guest Tommybarrett

A lot of people have used this site to save money on dental billing and it might be able to help you.

Edited by Tommybarrett
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.. For more information, please see our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.