Medical Identity Theft

We all have read about the massive data breaches in the news over the last few years. The Target breach, the Mapco breach, and the Anthem breach are but a few. The thought of some far-away computer hacker in a basement in Russia, or the far-East, is nothing foreign to us these days. Cyber-security systems, no matter how seemingly airtight, are vulnerable. We are all at risk. It seems every week, there is a story of another large company that was hacked and our personal information was stolen.

But how is your personal information used? A lot of times, your information is sold on the internet in bulk around the world (see my previous blog post). The purchasers of stolen information use credit card numbers to buy goods or pay for services. Sometimes they file false tax returns using your information to steal your rebate or claim one of your dependents on their return.

However, an alarming new trend is occurring in the world of identity theft and it is medical identity theft. Thieves use your personal information to receive treatment at hospitals and clinics, get prescriptions, or buy medical equipment. Usually, the health care provider is nowhere in your vicinity or provides treatment for a condition you do not have.

Victims sometimes only find out when they get a bill or a call from a debt collector. They can wind up with the thief’s health data and history in their own medical charts. A patient’s record may show she has diabetes when she does not, say, or list a different blood type—errors that can lead to dangerous diagnoses or treatments.

Adding insult to injury, a victim often is not allowed to fully examine his own records because medical-privacy laws such as HIPPA protect the thief’s health data. All the while, hospitals sometimes continue to hound victims for payments they did not incur.

To make the situation more alarming, medical identity theft is growing. According to a recently published survey, medical identity theft affected 2.3 million adult patients in 2014 versus 1.4 million in 2009. Another report published in February estimated that computer-data breaches of personal health information affected more than 40 million patients from 2009 through 2014.

Such identity theft has led about 40 companies, including Blue Cross Blue Shield Association and Aetna Inc., to form the Medical Identity Fraud Alliance. Some hospitals have turned to biometric screening to confirm patient identities. Also, unlike in financial identity theft, health identity-theft victims have a much more difficult time clearing the illegal bills because there is no health-care equivalent of the Fair Credit Reporting Act or the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, which limits consumers’ monetary losses if someone uses their credit information.

Georgia Debt-Collection Firm Accused of Filing 350,000 Lawsuits

A story broke recently about a Georgia law firm which filed over 350,000 lawsuits over the last four years. The lawsuits were collection efforts against consumers, many of whom may not actually owe debts or owe less than the amounts claimed. The government has filed a complaint against the firm alleging, “…in Georgia alone, the Firm sued about 78,000 consumers in 2009; about 84,000 in 2010; about 71,000 in 2011; about 57,000 in 2012; and about 60,000 in 2013. In sum, the Firm filed more than 350,000 collection suits from 2009 through 2013.” The firm denies the allegations.

It was reported that roughly 40,000 of the 350,000 suits were dismissed when challenged in court. It was also noted that consumers who retained attorneys were almost four times more likely to get their cases dismissed.

The amount of collection lawsuits filed has increased dramatically over the last number of years. A recent survey estimated that 1 in 3 adults with a credit history -- or 77 million people -- are so far behind on some of their debt payments that their account has been put "in collections." Click the link below to read more on that study:

http://money.cnn.com/2014/07/29/pf/debt-collections/index.html?iid=HP_LN&hpt=hp_t2

Identity theft has also been on the rise. We have all heard in the news the major data breaches at Target and Mapco recently. One of the best methods you can take to make sure your identity has not been stolen is to monitor your credit reports monthly through a variety of services offered.

Booth Samuels handles identity theft cases. If you have been the victim of identity theft, call 1-866-515-8880 or email him directly at booths@pittmandutton.com.

Latest Removal Procedure Ruling in Alabama

Earlier this month, Alabama Chief District Judge Watkins issued an opinion dealing with removal procedure in Stewart v. Bureaus Investment Group #1, 2011 WL 2313213.

In the Circuit Court of Macon County, Alabama, Bureaus brought a debt-collection action against Stewart.  Stewart answered and filed a counterclaim complaint, asserting a claim under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and various state-law-based claims.  Bureaus dismissed its debt-collection complaint, leaving pending only Stewart’s counterclaims. 

Interestingly, Bureaus then moved to realign the parties and the state court granted its motion.  Thereafter, Bureaus filed a notice of removal, asserting federal-question jurisdiction, predicated on the FDCPA claim.  Stewart filed a motion to remand and argued that there was no removal jurisdiction because only defendants may remove and, when the matter was commenced Bureaus was the plaintiff.

As noted by Chief Judge Watkins, no Circuit Court of Appeals has addressed “whether an order of realignment by a state court can allow a former plaintiff, now defendant, to remove a case to federal court based upon a pleading that was originally filed as a counter-complaint.”  Chief Judge Watkins determined that such a former plaintiff/now defendant could and subsequently denied Stewart’s motion to remand.  Because removal jurisdiction is determined based on the situation at the time of removal, for Chief Judge Watkins, at the time of removal, Stewart was the plaintiff prosecuting claims against Bureaus, the defendant.  The prior procedural history was immaterial in the analysis.

Likely, Stewart did not oppose the motion for realignment because she believed that there was no possibility of removal because Bureaus had instituted the litigation as the plaintiff.  The lesson to be drawn is that, if confronted with this scenario, one should oppose a motion to realign because the motion is being filed solely to divest the state court of jurisdiction and unnecessary for any other purpose.  Chief Judge Watkins’s analysis may be correct but it would be interesting to see if the Eleventh Circuit would affirm if there is ever any appellate review. Obviously, this case could turn out significantly different in another venue.

Our firm handles many cases dealing with the above issues. Most of the cases we handle involve victims of identity theft who have their credit wrecked by the credit companies, collection agencies and the credit reporting agencies who do not practice due diligence when handling someone’s credit rating and score. Credit score has become one of the single most important tools used in the financial world today. Deciding whether to file in state or federal court is a major decision when handling these types of cases. If you have been a victim of identity theft and your credit rating has been negatively affected, contact me today for a free case evaluation.