Medical Recovery Services, LLC v. Neumeier

415 P.3d 372 (2018)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

In late 2012, D received medical services from Dr. Baird, a medical provider. D provided Dr. Baird's office with information regarding his Blue Cross of Idaho insurance coverage. D left the office expecting that the bill would be submitted to his insurer. The office did not submit the bill to the insurer and instead sought payment directly from D. The office sent the bill to an incorrect address. In April 2014, Dr. Baird's billing agent assigned the delinquent account to P for collection. The claim amounted to $1,190.28. P continued to try to contact Neumeier by sending him mail at an incorrect address. D did not receive any of the attempted communications from Dr. Baird or P, nor did he receive any other form of demand for payment related to his visit. During this same time, D saw Dr. Baird for other unrelated medical services, which resulted in a separate bill that Dr. Baird's office submitted to D's insurer for payment. In April 2015, P sent a letter to the correct address. The letter was a notice letter under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. In addition to stating D's contact information, the notice letter provided an amount of debt ($958.63 exclusive of interest), the name of the creditor (P), and paraphrased recitations of the required inclusions under the Act. The letter did not identify Dr. Baird or connect the debt with a particular bill or treatment. On May 14, 2015, P sent the account to its legal counsel with instructions to file an action to recover the debt. On Monday, May 18, 2015, D visited Dr. Baird's office under the belief that the notice letter was a fraud or scam. The office discovered that it had never submitted the bill to P's insurer. They then informed D that the account had already been assigned to P for collection. P filed a complaint seeking a total award of $1,891.37. Dr. Baird's office finally submitted the bill to Blue Cross for payment. Blue Cross paid all but $42.66 of the bill, which was designated as a copayment balance. Dr. Baird's office waived the copayment balance. The office also informed P that the account had been satisfied, and P, in turn, notified its counsel. P refused to terminate the action. P moved to dismiss the complaint. The magistrate ultimately granted summary judgment in favor of D while denying the same for P. P appealed the matter to the district court which eventually affirmed the decision. P appealed.