I had a medical bill from a trip to the ER that is mine from BEFORE hubby and I married this happened one month before our marriage. Then in 2004 I went the the same hospital for some testing to be done, hubby signed some of the paper work for the 04 trip. Well the hospital linked him to my previous bill and slapped it on his credit and with a CA under his name. They are now trying to collect and threating a lawsuit if we don't pay up ($436). The hospital in question is not a state/goverment run hospital so the SOL is up for Florida(at least from what I've read). I read thru Whychats Hippa process as that is what I"ve been using with Med's and he states not to contact the CA directly as it voids our privacy but how do I deal with an SOL collection attempt then?

Thanks for all info I can get...

M

BUMP:)


Would like to know the answer to this one as well!

well since DH did not have any responsibility for the bill, I would DV them. Usually you don't want to contact a med CA but this is absolutely not his responsibility so DV would work. Don't let the threat of a lawsuit stop you, because they should not be able to legally sue him because you were not married therefore he is not responsible.

I would suggest going to the hospital..You and not your husband at first.

ask for the Billing dept/cashier's office so you get to the right place.

Then when there ask for a copy of the "invoice" and "Admitance" signature form. I say you as these are your medical records and they dont have to release them to your husband.

Then after you receive these, they will have a date of service on them...and more then likely showing a date before you were married.

Then have your husband mail a copy to the Hospital mentioning this is on his credit report and he is not the responcible party nor was you two married at the time....keep in mind this may jump over to your credit report if it is less then 7 years old......But your husband kind of has them in a trap at the moment as he would not have "HIPAA" rights/authorization to have knowledge of this mediacl transaction for that time period...but they are reporting it on his reports thus kinda giving him reason to ask for "verification" of what this is...

It's up to you how you play this...but he should have no problem getting it off his report at all...if he does have any type of problem, he will/may be looking at some nice $$ for his trouble as well as yourself for invasion of privacy...esp in FL if I understand how tough they are on the medical disclosue laws there.

They can not pull the "Needed Care" laws as you were not married at that time..so dont let them hoodwink ya on that front...

Now for my disclaimer..I am not a lawyer and do not know the laws of your state..thjis is just my opinion and my Grandma said Opinions were like a$${_|_}s, everyone has one and they all stink.....

BG

Thank You..

We have moved away from this hospital it's now a three and a half hour drive. However we will be in the area visiting family in the next few weeks so I will make a visit them.

We did dispute this with the CRA's using Whychats medical dispute letter and so far it's come of TU but not the other two. This fell off on tonights pull.

M

Medical bills ALWAYS fall under "Goods and services" in the UCC. The account ages from the date of service.

You need to make sure that the paperwork signed in 04 didn't renew any past obligations. Once you know that you can decide on an appropriate course of action.

If you didn't renew the obligations, then you have them for reaging the account past the 7 year reporting period (med bills always age from date of service not date of placement) and have an affirmative defense to any lawsuits as past SOL. If you're positive, send them a letter stating the account is past SOL with a full C&D

What constitutes renewing your obligations? Phone Call, DV, attempt to PFD, actual payment?

No, the forms that were signed at the hospital MAY have included a "blanket" coverage for responsibility/obligation of PAST bills as well as present ones.

Ahhh so for example you go to a hospital where you have an outstanding balance the new forms may renew the previous balance on top of the new ...

Okay, so I know this is an old thread but I have a question regarding the SOL. It was mentioned that the SOL on medical treatment always fell under goods and services, but it was my understanding that if the hospital received public funding it may be considered a government debt and therefore have no SOL. Does anyone know more about this?

I don't have any personal experience with this info, Whychat is not available right now and he would be the person to ask but I did find a thread where is talked about what you are saying. Hope it helps.

http://creditboards.com/forums/index.php?s...=sol+on+medical

Here are 2 cases in which it was ruled that the UCC did not apply:

Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP Wins Major Decision for Hospitals in Illinois Supreme Court: Court Finds Treating Hospitals Not Liable for Breach of Warranty Under UCC Following Surgical Implantation of Substandard Device
Transaction between Patient and Hospital is Predominantly a Transaction for Services, not Goods; Decision Overrules Previous Appellate Court Decision and Brings Illinois in Line with National Trend

Decision Summary

On June 5, 2003, the Illinois Supreme Court issued a landmark opinion preventing the application of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) to hospitals that surgically implant medical devices that are later found to be substandard. For the first time, the Court applied the "predominant purpose" test for transactions in goods under the UCC to the hospital-patient relationship. The Court found that because the transaction between the patient and the hospital was one for services and not for goods, the plaintiff could not bring a breach of warranty claim against the hospital. This decision overruled the only other appellate court decision to address the issue, Garcia v. Edgewater Hosp., 244 Ill.App.3d 894 (1st Dist. 1993). It also brings the State of Illinois in line with the national trend on this issue.

Case: Brenda Brandt v. BostonScientific Corporation (Sarah Bush Lincoln Health Center)

In the specific case Brenda Brandt v. Boston Scientific Corporation (Sarah Bush Lincoln Health Center), the plaintiff suffered severe complications following the surgical implantation of a medical device that was later recalled by the manufacturer for being substandard. Brandt filed an amended complaint that included a breach of implied warranty of merchantability claim (810 ILCS 5/2-314 (West 1998)) under the Uniform Commercial Code (810 ILCS 5/1-101 et seq. (West 2000)) against the hospital. The circuit court of Coles County dismissed the claim, and the appellate court affirmed (329 Ill. App. 3d 348). The Illinois Supreme Court granted Brandt's petition for leave to appeal (177 Ill. 2d R. 315) to resolve the question whether Brandt can bring a viable cause of action for breach of the UCC implied warranty of merchantability against the Health Center after a defective medical device was surgically implanted during her medical treatment in that hospital.

Specifically, Brandt was admitted to the Health Center to receive treatment for urinary incontinence. While there, a ProteGen Sling was surgically inserted on December 23, 1998. A charge for the sling was included in her bill from the hospital. In January 1999, the sling’s manufacturer, Boston Scientific Corporation, issued a voluntary recall of the product because the product was causing medical complications in 7% of patients. Brandt suffered serious complications. In response to these complications, the sling was surgically removed in November 1999.

Brandt filed a six-count complaint in July 2000, alleging negligence, strict liability, and breach of warranty against defendants Boston Scientific Corporation and Sarah Bush Lincoln Health Center.

Abbreviated Case History and Analysis

The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of the UCC count of the amended complaint, though on different grounds than the trial court. Specifically, the appellate court found that the transaction between Brandt and the Health Center was primarily for services rather than goods so that the UCC did not apply. The appellate court expressly declined to follow the Garcia case.

Upon review, the Illinois Supreme Court explained that Article 2 of the UCC imposes the implied warranty of merchantability. In order to succeed on a claim of breach of implied warranty of merchantability, a plaintiff must allege and prove: (1) a sale of goods (2) by a merchant of those goods, and (3) the goods were not of merchantable quality. After a thorough legal analysis which took into account the fact that the hospital actually sold the sling to the plaintiff, the Court found that the hospital’s actions were “predominantly” service oriented. Thus, the “sale of goods” element was lacking, making the count insufficient as a matter of law.

http://www.hinshawlaw.com/newsevents/news_...il.aspx?id=9978