Two CA's --- One OC

mtnair · 12-24-2006, 06:58 PM

Dentist sent alleged outstanding bill (he never finished crown, still have temp in mouth, took money from ins., did deduct some from bill) to two different CA's.

Both are listed on CR, both have balances.

Disputed both with CRA, came back verified.

Any suggestions?

jlynn · 12-24-2006, 07:18 PM

Have you tried validation?

roybean · 12-24-2006, 08:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mtnair

Dentist sent alleged outstanding bill (he never finished crown, still have temp in mouth, took money from ins., did deduct some from bill) to two different CA's.

Both are listed on CR, both have balances.

Disputed both with CRA, came back verified.

Any suggestions?

Why didn't they finish work? Medical/Dental are really bad about billing- it is kind of like an assembly line if you don't bring it to their attention. And then you have the run of the mill dirty low down sons of guns too. Just bill, bill, bill and never do any investigation.

I agree with JLynn.

Pale Rider · 12-24-2006, 10:22 PM

Dispute as recommended above. If the results are not satisfactory, your state insurance commission may be interested in the fraudulent billing for unperformed procedures. You could also contact your local BBB, the FTC, and your state Attorney General about Unfair and Deceptive Acts and Practices.

mtnair · 12-25-2006, 12:54 AM

I missed two appointments, and they decided to not have me as a patient anymore.

Original date of service was Feb 04.

So, send DV letter to both CA's?

What about the OC sending to two CA's?

mtnair · 12-25-2006, 12:54 AM

I'd find the SOL in the UCC for this right?

direred · 12-25-2006, 01:42 AM

What I discovered in one of my cases is that some CAs will farm out to more local collectors (especially if there's licensing, etc.) involved. Only one of them is supposed to report (usually the holder of the assigment), but sometimes, in violation of the agreement, the 2nd CA also reports.

I managed to get docs from the OC and CA#1 against CA#2 in my own case like this, for their right to collect had only been for a year and ended several years prior....

mtnair · 12-25-2006, 02:10 PM

One says placed for collection 11/04, est. date fo removal 9/11, open acct., past due.

The second one says placed for collection 12/04, est. date for removal 1/11 open acct., past due, also says under loan type: CA/Attorney

jlynn · 12-26-2006, 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mtnair

One says placed for collection 11/04, est. date fo removal 9/11, open acct., past due.

..."original date of service 2/04"...this one is illegally reaged.

mtnair · 12-26-2006, 12:37 PM

Quote:

CA/Attorney

I thought this was also illegal if it hasn't been sent to an attorney.

hannah · 12-27-2006, 04:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mtnair

I'd find the SOL in the UCC for this right?

California Statute of Limitations (in years)

* Open Account: 2 (no writing)
* Open Account: 4 (reduced to writing)
* Written Contract: 4
* Domestic Judgment: 10 (renewable at 10)
* Foreign Judgment: 10 (commencing with judgment debtor's commencement of CA residence.)

I am going out on a limb here and say that probably the 4 year open account will apply as you probably signed papers permitting them to not only bill your insurance but also to permit the work on your teeth. I am going to assume that they still have the paperwork in your file.

One thing, if they elected to discontinue having you as a patient, and did not finish the work on your teeth, then you may have them in a breach of contract situation as well. If they billed your insurance for work not finished due to their own breach, they may have committed insurance fraud. I would need more information on this from you as to what actually happened in you missing those appointments and them electing not to continue having you as a patient.

hannah · 12-27-2006, 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mtnair

I thought this was also illegal if it hasn't been sent to an attorney.

I wouldn't sue over something like that as they could claim it meant CA or attorney. Now an unsophisticated consumer might think it meant having been sent to an attorney but I really doubt it would fly in court unless as part of suit with more egregious violations.

DUSTY · 12-27-2006, 07:04 PM

Was just getting my credit cleaned up and bam, along come a Dentist that 'made a mistake with the insurance'. Good luck.

direred · 12-27-2006, 09:19 PM

Credit repair always seems to have bumps. Eventually they seem to stop.

roybean · 12-28-2006, 12:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mtnair

I thought this was also illegal if it hasn't been sent to an attorney.

I think what you are thinking of is case law on attorneys and mass mailings without the attorney having actual knowledge of the debt.

mtnair · 12-28-2006, 12:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roybean

I think what you are thinking of is case law on attorneys and mass mailings without the attorney having actual knowledge of the debt.

Actually, I thought that it was misleading to put this on the credit report, when it hadn't been sent to an attorney. And the CA is local, not an attorney.

I thought in the last couple weeks I had read something about this.