Accord & Satisfaction Check for Helicopter Ambulance

[flacorps]

At the end of January, our son had to go for a little helicopter flight ... immobilized on a backboard!

 

He and our across-the-street neighbor were playing "Wonder Pets" while the moms klatched on the sidewalk. Running and chasing. It was time to go in and have dinner (this was about 5:30). Son ran to my DW and tried to grab her legs and bounced off ... and the back of his head hit the sidewalk. It happened that fast. No loss of consciousness, he was up and crying immediately. I went inside, got a cold pack, and DW rocked him in a recliner for a few minutes until he stopped crying. Then he got a little Tylenol and the dinner routine commenced. And he fell asleep immediately right at the table. Normal bedtime would have been 8:30. So she called the doctor's office, and her sister in law (a former nurse) up in Minnesota while she held him in her arms.

 

There were discussions with the doctor's office, and once they were aware we were not able to rouse him they told her point blank to call 911, which she did. I estimate 911's response time was under 3 minutes. A set of very professional paramedics arrived and they grew increasingly concerned because they too were unable to rouse him. So it was time to get out the backboard and call the helicopter.

 

The immobilization procedure sure roused him! And he was not happy! But ... his protests were mostly verbal and his struggling was not as vigorous as what they would have liked to see ... and we know this kid is muscle from head to foot ... anybody who has ever picked him up has commented on that.

 

So we went there, and he was airlifted to a local hospital ... frightened and angry, but very much alert (though they did ask mom at one point whether he was seizing and her answer was no, he's mad) ... we raced there to find ... a happy toddler charming the nurses and playing with a new Hot Wheels car they'd given him. The doctor said it was a coin toss whether to do a CAT scan, but that judging by what they'd had to deal with when he arrived, the necessary immobilization was not going to be well tolerated.

 

So it was off to Whataburger and home, none the worse for wear and with a story to tell along with the world's most expensive Hot Wheels Austin Healey.

 

So the MediVac company sends us a bill for $10k plus, while our insurance sends us $1.7k on a $4.2k allowable amount. I sent the MediVac company $4.2 k with a notation "Allowable amount in full and final settlement of account XX-YYY-ZZZ."

They cashed it yesterday. The 90 day clock is ticking. I expect pretty much the same outcome as last time:

 

http://creditboards.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=45800

 

For those with ready cash, this can be a good technique.

[Why Chat]

At the end of January, our son had to go for a little helicopter flight ... immobilized on a backboard!

 

He and our across-the-street neighbor were playing "Wonder Pets" while the moms klatched on the sidewalk. Running and chasing. It was time to go in and have dinner (this was about 5:30). Son ran to my DW and tried to grab her legs and bounced off ... and the back of his head hit the sidewalk. It happened that fast. No loss of consciousness, he was up and crying immediately. I went inside, got a cold pack, and DW rocked him in a recliner for a few minutes until he stopped crying. Then he got a little Tylenol and the dinner routine commenced. And he fell asleep immediately right at the table. Normal bedtime would have been 8:30. So she called the doctor's office, and her sister in law (a former nurse) up in Minnesota while she held him in her arms.

 

There were discussions with the doctor's office, and once they were aware we were not able to rouse him they told her point blank to call 911, which she did. I estimate 911's response time was under 3 minutes. A set of very professional paramedics arrived and they grew increasingly concerned because they too were unable to rouse him. So it was time to get out the backboard and call the helicopter.

 

The immobilization procedure sure roused him! And he was not happy! But ... his protests were mostly verbal and his struggling was not as vigorous as what they would have liked to see ... and we know this kid is muscle from head to foot ... anybody who has ever picked him up has commented on that.

 

So we went there, and he was airlifted to a local hospital ... frightened and angry, but very much alert (though they did ask mom at one point whether he was seizing and her answer was no, he's mad) ... we raced there to find ... a happy toddler charming the nurses and playing with a new Hot Wheels car they'd given him. The doctor said it was a coin toss whether to do a CAT scan, but that judging by what they'd had to deal with when he arrived, the necessary immobilization was not going to be well tolerated.

 

So it was off to Whataburger and home, none the worse for wear and with a story to tell along with the world's most expensive Hot Wheels Austin Healey.

 

So the MediVac company sends us a bill for $10k plus, while our insurance sends us $1.7k on a $4.2k allowable amount. I sent the MediVac company $4.2 k with a notation "Allowable amount in full and final settlement of account XX-YYY-ZZZ."

They cashed it yesterday. The 90 day clock is ticking. I expect pretty much the same outcome as last time:

 

http://creditboards.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=45800

 

For those with ready cash, this can be a good technique.

Glad the little speedster is OK.

 

Your method works fine ONLY when there is insurance that provides the correct discounted fee .

The MediVac service( or ANY HC provider) is REQUIRED to accept the "allowable" amount if they file for the insurance.

[flacorps]

So the MediVac company sends us a bill for $10k plus, while our insurance sends us $1.7k on a $4.2k allowable amount. I sent the MediVac company $4.2 k with a notation "Allowable amount in full and final settlement of account XX-YYY-ZZZ."

They cashed it yesterday. The 90 day clock is ticking. I expect pretty much the same outcome as last time:

 

http://creditboards.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=45800

 

For those with ready cash, this can be a good technique.

Glad the little speedster is OK.

 

Your method works fine ONLY when there is insurance that provides the correct discounted fee .

The MediVac service( or ANY HC provider) is REQUIRED to accept the "allowable" amount if they file for the insurance.

 

Thanks Why Chat.

 

I'm a little hazy on something so perhaps you could enlighten me (and the rest of the CB community).

 

The medivac company obviously sent a bill to our insurance company, but they're an out-of-network provider so the insurance company sent us the amount that the insurance company would pay on the claim if we had been using an in-network provider (clearly we didn't have time to make a choice here, nor were we offered a choice).

 

So given the fact that there is no deal in place between the insurance company and the medivac company, are they still allowed to bill us only the allowable amount? If so, why send a $10k bill (if it's 'cause they expect we're stupid, isn't that fraud?--and if they did it because they can then how could it be accurate to say that they are required to accept the $4.2k in full payment)?

 

I just want to distinguish this situation from one where the insurance company denies coverage and says "you're on your own" ... I think in that case the "allowable amount" is definitely out the window as a yardstick for what the provider must accept (although again, using a 3-311 accord & satisfaction check should be effective ... it's a "reasonable" payment for the service according to an insurance company and the patient is in a position to argue that the additional amount the provider wanted was unreasonable).

 

I just would like to know if there really is anything that could actually be cited that would require the out-of-network provider to accept what one's insurance company says is the allowable amount?

 

If there's a good existing discussion on this, please feel free to just drop a link!

[Why Chat]

So the MediVac company sends us a bill for $10k plus, while our insurance sends us $1.7k on a $4.2k allowable amount. I sent the MediVac company $4.2 k with a notation "Allowable amount in full and final settlement of account XX-YYY-ZZZ."

They cashed it yesterday. The 90 day clock is ticking. I expect pretty much the same outcome as last time:

 

http://creditboards.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=45800

 

For those with ready cash, this can be a good technique.

Glad the little speedster is OK.

 

Your method works fine ONLY when there is insurance that provides the correct discounted fee .

The MediVac service( or ANY HC provider) is REQUIRED to accept the "allowable" amount if they file for the insurance.

 

Thanks Why Chat.

 

I'm a little hazy on something so perhaps you could enlighten me (and the rest of the CB community).

 

The medivac company obviously sent a bill to our insurance company, but they're an out-of-network provider so the insurance company sent us the amount that the insurance company would pay on the claim if we had been using an in-network provider (clearly we didn't have time to make a choice here, nor were we offered a choice).

 

So given the fact that there is no deal in place between the insurance company and the medivac company, are they still allowed to bill us only the allowable amount? If so, why send a $10k bill (if it's 'cause they expect we're stupid, isn't that fraud?--and if they did it because they can then how could it be accurate to say that they are required to accept the $4.2k in full payment)?

 

I just want to distinguish this situation from one where the insurance company denies coverage and says "you're on your own" ... I think in that case the "allowable amount" is definitely out the window as a yardstick for what the provider must accept (although again, using a 3-311 accord & satisfaction check should be effective ... it's a "reasonable" payment for the service according to an insurance company and the patient is in a position to argue that the additional amount the provider wanted was unreasonable).

 

I just would like to know if there really is anything that could actually be cited that would require the out-of-network provider to accept what one's insurance company says is the allowable amount?

 

If there's a good existing discussion on this, please feel free to just drop a link!

If you had to use an out of network provider, the difference is out of YOUR pocket, not the HC provider's.

The approved amount is the same regardless of WHO pays.

The billing method is the same on medicare ( or any other insurance), you would get the total bill, then a bill reflecting your insurance payments and your co-pay and/or deductible payments then a "write-off" amount of the difference.

 

( BTW- this "write-off" or discounted amount is often the amount that is "picked up" years later by garbage CA's, another reason to keep ALL your medical payment records for at least 7 years)

 

If someone has NO insurance, they can NOT legally use the "reasonable and ordinary" charges as a basis for payment on a delinquent bill.

They can, and should make immediate arrangements to have an OC accept the discounted "approved" amounts if possible at time of service, or they can use the HIPAA program insert "a" schedule to try to get the OC to accept the "allowable" amount.

 

There was a recent Court ruling ( in Fl.) that said, in effect, that a hospital is NOT legally obligated to accept the "discounted" amount as payment in full from an uninsured patient unless they had agreed to do so at the time of service.

[flacorps]

( BTW- this "write-off" or discounted amount is often the amount that is "picked up" years later by garbage CA's, another reason to keep ALL your medical payment records for at least 7 years)

 

IIRC, this is what is termed "balance billing" and it's a no-no for sure.

 

If someone has NO insurance, they can NOT legally use the "reasonable and ordinary" charges as a basis for payment on a delinquent bill.

They can, and should make immediate arrangements to have an OC accept the discounted "approved" amounts if possible at time of service, or they can use the HIPAA program insert "a" schedule to try to get the OC to accept the "allowable" amount.

 

I think the HIPAA program insert "A" schedule would be a good starting point for calculating the amount of the UCC 3-311 accord & satisfaction check in the event that negotiations break down.

 

There was a recent Court ruling ( in Fl.) that said, in effect, that a hospital is NOT legally obligated to accept the "discounted" amount as payment in full from an uninsured patient unless they had agreed to do so at the time of service.

 

Just to put a gloss on that: an accord and satisfaction check, properly used, would provide an independent legal basis for a "discounted" amount to be accepted by the court as discharging the debt owed to the provider. No, the hospital is not legally required to accept it, but if they keep the sum you paid for 90 days without sending it back, they've accepted it and that's final.

 

In other words, if you just send the provider a check for the discounted amount with no notation, the case Why Chat is mentioning would mean that you're no better off; however, if the check included the appropriate UCC 3-311 "in full and final satisfaction" language, then the discounted amount would support a claim that the debt was accepted as full payment. If you simply pulled a sum out of the air and it was less than the discounted amount, including the accord and satisfaction language on the check would probably not keep a court from ruling that you owed more.

[flacorps]

Update. Got a second bill from them. They credited the amount paid, but it appears they're still expecting the balance.

 

The plan here is to wait out the balance of the 90 days, then advise them that they have accepted the amount paid in final settlement pursuant to Florida's version of UCC 3-311.

 

It appears that the helicopter service is owned by a private, not for profit hospital. Not sure how that affects things.

[Why Chat]

Update. Got a second bill from them. They credited the amount paid, but it appears they're still expecting the balance.

 

The plan here is to wait out the balance of the 90 days, then advise them that they have accepted the amount paid in final settlement pursuant to Florida's version of UCC 3-311. This is in effect ONLY if an existing contract/agreement is in place, such as an insurance plan that they participate in, OR if they had made an agreement with you IN WRITING to accept the lesser amount

 

It appears that the helicopter service is owned by a private, not for profit hospital. Not sure how that affects things.

I have not enlarged on this issue of "accord and satisfaction" that you raised because it confuses the people who are following the HIPAA letter program on my website.

 

The "restrictive endorsement" used as part of the HIPAA letter program ( insert "a") has NOTHING to do with any "accord and satisfaction" restrictive endorsement, it is a BANKING restriction ONLY.

 

The use of the "full payment phrase" in insert "a" referring to the ordinary and usual charges as obtained from the fee chart in that insert is NOT binding on the OC to accept. They could, in theory, deposit the money order and STILL have a balance due, as the "endorsement" on the money order is NOT "tied" to the HIPAA letter by any statement of "payment in full" as part of the endorsement.

 

I tell people to NOT add to the "banking" restrictive endorsement in ANY WAY as it would negate the payment, because an accord and satisfaction is NOT legally binding as a contract of adhesion in ANY State.

 

This means simply that if someone does what you have done and sent a payment as payment in full, it is a non binding contract. They have every right to continue to bill you for the balance. The ONLY way that type of accord and satisfaction COULD be binding is if they had signed an agreement to accept the payment as payment in full and your check included a reference to that signed agreement.

 

In addition, your partial payment can and probably will be reported to any CA who can then legally reduce the amount they are reporting to the CRA's but still continue to report a balance due. You will have NO ability to use the HIPAA letter program as your payment to the OC can and will be reported to the CA and they are exempted from the HIPAA privacy rules as they were negated by the very accord and satisfaction you used.

[flacorps]

This means simply that if someone does what you have done and sent a payment as payment in full, it is a non binding contract. They have every right to continue to bill you for the balance. The ONLY way that type of accord and satisfaction COULD be binding is if they had signed an agreement to accept the payment as payment in full and your check included a reference to that signed agreement.

 

Not exactly. It's binding after 90 days provided it was a good faith payment on a bona fide dispute, made either to an address specified for such payments or to the general payment address if there wasn't a separate address specified for accord and satisfaction checks.

 

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index....03111#0673.3111

 

The provision cited has to do with the effect of checks negotiated by parties receiving checks in general, and is broadly applicable to any situation ... HIPAA issues are separate and apart from that, and it is quite possible that in a given situation one could be superior over the other. In my situations, I have deemed the UCC accord and satisfaction provision to be the best approach.

[Why Chat]

This means simply that if someone does what you have done and sent a payment as payment in full, it is a non binding contract. They have every right to continue to bill you for the balance. The ONLY way that type of accord and satisfaction COULD be binding is if they had signed an agreement to accept the payment as payment in full and your check included a reference to that signed agreement.

 

Not exactly. It's binding after 90 days provided it was a good faith payment on a bona fide dispute, made either to an address specified for such payments or to the general payment address if there wasn't a separate address specified for accord and satisfaction checks.

 

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index....03111#0673.3111

 

The provision cited has to do with the effect of checks negotiated by parties receiving checks in general, and is broadly applicable to any situation ... HIPAA issues are separate and apart from that, and it is quite possible that in a given situation one could be superior over the other. In my situations, I have deemed the UCC accord and satisfaction provision to be the best approach.

 

I understood from your prior posts that they NEVER billed you or sent you any notice that the amount you tendered as "payment in full" WAS actually agreed to, that would, in my opinion, combined with the fact that they have rebilled you for the balance negate the so called "accord and satisfaction" as there was NO "accord" and the citation you give clearly states that the payment can not be considered as payment in full failing their prior agreement, ( i.e. accord).

 

(3) Subject to subsection (4), a claim is not discharged under subsection (2) if either paragraph (a) or paragraph ("b") applies:

 

(a) The claimant, if an organization, proves that:

 

1. Within a reasonable time before the tender, the claimant sent a conspicuous statement to the person against whom the claim is asserted that communications concerning disputed debts, including an instrument tendered as full satisfaction of a debt, are to be sent to a designated person, office, or place; and

 

2. The instrument or accompanying communication was not received by that designated person, office, or place. They did not receive payment in full as STATED in their prior billing

 

("b") The claimant, whether or not an organization, proves that, within 90 days after payment of the instrument, the claimant tendered repayment of the amount of the instrument to the person against whom the claim is asserted. This paragraph does not apply if the claimant is an organization that sent a statement complying with subparagraph (a)1.

 

(4) A claim is discharged if the person against whom the claim is asserted proves that within a reasonable time before collection of the instrument was initiated, the claimant, or an agent of the claimant having direct responsibility with respect to the disputed obligation, knew that the instrument was tendered in full satisfaction of the claim.

 

 

In my opinion, you can be sued for the balance due. And you can certainly have it legally go to a CA and put on your reports.

Edited April 13, 2008 by Why Chat

[flacorps]

I think that due to the talmudic complexity of the statute there is a misreading going on here. The UCC 3-311 language doesn't require any "meeting of the minds." It allows the debtor to perform a "gotcha" in certain clearly defined circumstances, but it does have protections for the diligent creditor.

 

The very last paragraph is simply a saving paragraph for the debtor--if the creditor knew the A&S check was coming, the debtor is off the hook regardless of certain other technicalities.

 

The (3)(a) 1&2 language has to do with the creditor designating a special, out-of-the ordinary address for A&S checks so that they aren't simply handled by automated payment processing. The creditor hasn't done that in this instance. Which leaves them wide open to the A&S check at their normal billing address.

 

So when the 90-day clock goes "ding" we have a done deal, provided that a court accepts that billing for $6k more than the allowable amount creates a bona fide dispute, and that sending a check for the allowable amount is a good faith effort to resolve that dispute. While some might define good faith as me not trying to get a $6k discount using an arcane statute as my guide, I prefer to define it as sending them the allowable amount without delay rather than witholding it while we quibble over what amount they should receive.

 

A lot of the glosses on the statutory language are contained in the official commentary from the drafting committee of (I believe) the ALI, which is copyrighted stuff. Nonetheless a diligent researcher can often find it on the net. I haven't looked for it again today, but IIRC, there is a version of the Kansas or the Nebraska UCC 3-311 kicking around on the net with all the official commentary still attached.

Edited April 14, 2008 by flacorps

[Why Chat]

There is NO "pil-pul" involved.

*Pilpul (Hebrew: פלפול, loosely meaning "sharp analysis") refers to a method of studying the Talmud through intense textual analysis *

 

You are misconstruing the UCC and trying to have it take precedence over very CLEAR language in the Fl. ( and all other State's)statutes on Accord and Satisfaction and Restrictive Endorsement.

 

Because of your post in the medical forum and your answer in the credit forum, I readdressed this issue, ( which I had thought was laid to rest over 5 years ago when the credit repair scam artists tried to use "your" method to defraud numerous victims).

 

http://creditboards.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=330748

Edited April 14, 2008 by Why Chat

[flacorps]

Because of the UCC, there are two lines of case law in each and every state that has any case law on accord and satisfaction.

 

I'm confident of my position.

[flacorps]

I thought I'd add an instructive article on the subject:

http://www.dcba.org/brief/febissue/2006/art10206.htm

[Why Chat]

I thought I'd add an instructive article on the subject:

http://www.dcba.org/brief/febissue/2006/art10206.htm

Lots of similar case law on this topic, they all seem to quote the same prevailing theory of contract law that I stated as the reason why "your" idea wouldn't be binding as a "settlement" for less than the amount demanded.

 

The First District Appellate Court upheld a long line of common-law precedent when it ruled that the cashing of a check marked "final payment" barred a claim for a larger amount based on accord and satisfaction.10 The Court began its analysis by defining an accord and satisfaction. "An accord and satisfaction is a contractual method of discharging debts or claims between the parties to such an agreement. In order for such an arrangement to exist, there must be: (1)a bona fide dispute as to the claims pending between the parties;[/u] (2) an unliquidated sum owed; (3) consideration, (4) a shared mutual intent to compromise the claims; and (5) execution of the agreement. The accord is the actual agreement between the parties, while the satisfaction is its execution or performance. Because the concept is grounded on contract law, courts focus on the intent of the parties when discerning whether an accord and satisfaction has been reached and subsequently executed."11

 

Without an "agreement" i.e. ACCORD signed by BOTH parties IN GOOD FAITH, there is NO legal "accord and satisfaction".

 

NOW-- When paying a medical/hospital bill, there IS a way to provide "leverage" for the creditor to accept a lesser amount, that is in the insert "a" of the HIPAA letter agreement, with a PROPER reference to the "usual and customary" fee for the service. MOST STATES have enacted SOME patient billing protection statutes that MAY require the OC to accept a lesser amount IF it is based on VALID DOCUMENTATION.

[flacorps]

Despite the fact that some courts have read an accord requirement into UCC 3-311, neither the model statute (which has been enacted without substantial modification in many states) nor the commentary make any reference to an accord. In fact, the section is tellingly titled: "Satisfaction by Use of Instrument" ... meaning that for the sake of simplifying the lives of the courts, the drafters specifically intended that a meeting of the minds not be necessary for the satisfaction check to be effective (although in subsection (d) they basically provided for the existence of an accord as traditionally understood by courts to trump the statute's technical requirements and create a satisfaction where one would otherwise fail).

 

If there's a bona fide dispute, and if the check is a good faith effort to settle the dispute and includes the requisite language and it goes to the correct address (or the general payment address if no separate address has been designated) and the creditor keeps the money for 90 days (or knew the check was coming as a payment in satisfaction of the debt), then the matter is closed. If the bona-fide dispute is lacking, or perhaps some other element, the debtor must fall back on whatever pre-UCC (or post-UCC common law) case law is available.

 

Courts are not free to substitute their judgment for the requirements of the statute, and to the extent they make findings of law consistent with prior case law and inconsistent with the statute, they are ruling in error. The statute is a model of clarity despite the complex-compound nature of its sentences, and the commentary fleshes it out fully and with little room for misinterpretation.

 

I feel confident that a discrepancy between the allowable amount and the amount claimed by a provider is ipso facto a bona-fide dispute, since allowable amounts are not simply drawn from the air. And prompt payment of the allowable amount is good faith effort to resolve that dispute.

 

And if any judge tells me otherwise I'll work my way up through the appellate chain until I get one who can correctly apply the written law to the facts.

Edited April 22, 2008 by flacorps

[Why Chat]

I feel confident that a discrepancy between the allowable amount and the amount claimed by a provider is ipso facto a bona-fide dispute, since allowable amounts are not simply drawn from the air. And prompt payment of the allowable amount is good faith effort to resolve that dispute.

 

And if any judge tells me otherwise I'll work my way up through the appellate chain until I get one who can correctly apply the written law to the facts.

"Fla" I understand and appreciate your position, and recognize your dedication to "fighting all the way".

YOU obviously have the ability and resources to battle in the Courts pro-se.

 

HOWEVER, the purpose of this forum, as I see it, is to get people OUT of trouble, not to sink them further INTO trouble. Giving questionable advice to OTHERS on a tactic that you have yet to prove is workable, and one that was used in years past by "so called Credit repair Service" SCAM ARTISTS, is, in my opinion, not a very helpful addition.

[flacorps]

How many times must it work to prove it's workable? So far we're 1 for 1, and the second game is in the early innings.

 

But I would agree that if the amount of the bill is not in question the Why Chat approach using HIPAA is the way to go.

 

And where the amount of the bill is in question, a negotiated approach at the outset may be superior to one like mine if there is no allowable amount as a guide to go by. In my specific situation, by the time negotiations begin I will hold a commanding position.

 

It is unquestioned that medical costs are out of control in this country. One of the ways they can best be controlled is by simply refusing to overpay. No other method comes as close to Marshall McLuhan's dictum "The medium is the message."

[flacorps]

Ohio's version of the statute includes the official commentary, which

can be difficult to find on the 'net.

 

http://law.justia.com/ohio/codes/orc/jd_130340-54e5.html

[flacorps]

We are now 60 days along. If it goes 10 more days, they could even sue and I would not have to tip my hand before the 90 day clock had run out (20 days to answer a complaint). Even if they were to sue today, they would likely lose a day or two getting it served, and a timely answer would leave them very little time to cut a check and send it back.

 

In all likelihood the average creditor is like a crab ... loathe to let go of a morsel it's already got.

[flacorps]

Well, no check has come back yet and as of today I wouldn't have to tip my hand before the 90 days are up even if a lawsuit were to show up at my doorstep (20 days to answer).

 

Since as of now they needn't be apprised of the opportunity to send back the amount I paid, it's quite likely the rest of the 20 days will go by without getting a check back from them.

[Why Chat]

Well, no check has come back yet and as of today I wouldn't have to tip my hand before the 90 days are up even if a lawsuit were to show up at my doorstep (20 days to answer).

 

Since as of now they needn't be apprised of the opportunity to send back the amount I paid, it's quite likely the rest of the 20 days will go by without getting a check back from them.

OK, so as I understand "your" method, you have paid the OC with a (personal check??money order??) with an accord and satisfaction in the endorsement area for less than the amount billed.

 

They have deposited the check??

 

It was not/is not on your credit reports?

 

So, exactly what have you accomplished ?? You paid x$$ to an OC with an "accord and satisfaction" and are relying on your interpretation of State statutes to get them to accept the reduced payment as payment in full.

 

Let's assume that they have deposited the check, and have "written off" the balance, what exactly prevents them from sending the balance to a CA for collection and placement on your reports??

 

The OC MIGHT be "prevented" from going after you for the balance, however, there is NO restriction on them turning the balance over to a CA. It isn't as if they have provided you with a 1099C for the balance!! Nor do you have any valid receipt from them that shows the account is paid in full and there is no balance due.

[flacorps]

Note the language in UCC 3-311 that says the claim is discharged. That means it's dead, done and gone.

 

Say they send it to a CA ... that's where your (Why Chat's) approach kicks in.

 

I send a DV letter to the CA and at the same time (or perhaps a day or so earlier) I send a letter to the OC advising them that the claim is discharged, that what they've already provided to the CA is a HIPAA violation and that they sure better not provide the CA with anything else.

 

So either the OC not only doesn't validate, they pull the claim back from the CA; ... or, they provide the CA what's needed to validate and we've piled a HIPAA violation on top of the invalidity of the OC's claim.

 

Keep in mind that Florida's medical privacy laws are more stringent than HIPAA. There is not a provision included there that would allow information to be transmitted to a CA. I'm not kidding.

Edited May 30, 2008 by flacorps

[Why Chat]

Note the language in UCC 3-311 that says the claim is discharged. That means it's dead, done and gone.

 

Say they send it to a CA ... that's where your (Why Chat's) approach kicks in.

 

I send a DV letter to the CA and at the same time (or perhaps a day or so earlier) I send a letter to the OC advising them that the claim is discharged, that what they've already provided to the CA is a HIPAA violation and that they sure better not provide the CA with anything else.

 

So either the OC not only doesn't validate, they pull the claim back from the CA; ... or, they provide the CA what's needed to validate and we've piled a HIPAA violation on top of the invalidity of the OC's claim.

 

Keep in mind that Florida's medical privacy laws are more stringent than HIPAA. There is not a provision included there that would allow information to be transmitted to a CA. I'm not kidding.

You have lost me Fla!! How can you use the HIPAA privacy laws on the OC not being able to communicate any "payment" data to a CA on an account that is paid in full when you never sent the HIPAA letter with your payment, or used ANY kind of "firewall" on your payment that would prevent them from turning it over to a CA.

 

The HIPAA letter program is NOT a "mix and match" deal, I hope that you were successful in YOUR method, but please do NOT think you can NOW use the HIPAA rules.

 

If you want to have someone arrested for trespassing, you need to FIRST post a "NO TRESPASSING" sign.

[flacorps]

Time's up!

 

I will keep folks apprised with respect to what happens from here.

[Why Chat]

Time's up!

 

I will keep folks apprised with respect to what happens from here.

"Time is up" for WHAT??

 

Are you saying you used "your" method to make a payment to an OC for less than what was owed and there has been no change in the reporting on your credit report??

 

What do you plan to do next??