[00:00:09] Speaker 04:
Could it please the court?

[00:00:10] Speaker 04:
Attorney Robert Mitchell on behalf of Ms.

[00:00:12] Speaker 04:
Reiser, who is with us here in the courtroom today.

[00:00:15] Speaker 04:
Located at council table is my paralegal.

[00:00:19] Speaker 04:
This is a case involving credit reporting of a medical debt collection.

[00:00:28] Speaker 04:
The trial court found that the reason that it was acceptable and that there was no violations was twofold.

[00:00:36] Speaker 04:
One,

[00:00:37] Speaker 04:
Ms.

[00:00:37] Speaker 04:
Reiser couldn't prove that her infant daughter was covered by Medicaid, and two, Medicaid didn't pay.

[00:00:44] Speaker 04:
I have two documents to refer to.

[00:00:47] Speaker 04:
If the court would like, I've got copies for the court, or nope, okay.

[00:00:53] Speaker 04:
The first document is ER 569, and what this document shows us is several things.

[00:01:01] Speaker 04:
One, it lists the infant child.

[00:01:04] Speaker 04:
It is an EOB, which is an explanation of benefits from the Department of DSHS, which is Medicaid.

[00:01:12] Speaker 04:
It lists the infant child.

[00:01:14] Speaker 04:
It lists the date of service.

[00:01:15] Speaker 04:
It lists a $25,435 payment.

[00:01:20] Speaker 04:
So from this document, what we know for certain is that this infant was covered by Medicaid.

[00:01:26] Speaker 04:
You cannot argue that a child is not covered by Medicaid when Medicaid made a $25,000 payment.

[00:01:33] Speaker 04:
If we skip down, this document also includes the stated debt that was credit reported, $2,790.37.

[00:01:41] Speaker 04:
Now, the argument was because Medicaid didn't actually pay the $2,790, that that means that it wasn't covered.

[00:01:52] Speaker 04:
That is simply not how Medicaid works.

[00:01:55] Speaker 04:
If you look down on the document, it has a code that explains what was not covered, and it's entitled non-covered charges.

[00:02:04] Speaker 04:
The code for that is 96.

[00:02:06] Speaker 04:
If we look up in the other adjustment column, there is one code that relates to 96.

[00:02:15] Speaker 04:
That charge is $23.44.

[00:02:18] Speaker 04:
So the only portion of this bill that wasn't covered by Medicaid, and it's specifically stated as a non-covered chart, is $23.44.

[00:02:26] Speaker 04:
The remainder of the $27.90 was covered by Medicaid.

[00:02:33] Speaker 04:
It wasn't paid by Medicaid because there were billing discrepancies.

[00:02:37] Speaker 04:
Now the way that Medicaid works is fairly simple.

[00:02:40] Speaker 04:
If it's a covered Medicaid service, it is prescribed by statute that Medicaid covers that service.

[00:02:46] Speaker 04:
If the hospital wants to receive payment for that service, the hospital needs to bill correctly.

[00:02:51] Speaker 04:
But if the hospital fails to bill correctly, the statute is very clear that the hospital is not entitled to then bill the patient.

[00:02:58] Speaker 04:
That's called balanced billing, and it is illegal and is prohibited.

[00:03:02] Speaker 04:
And that's exactly what occurred in this case.

[00:03:04] Speaker 04:
A hospital billed Medicaid.

[00:03:06] Speaker 04:
Medicaid said, yes, these are covered services, and we will pay you for them if you bill us properly.

[00:03:12] Speaker 04:
Somehow the hospital from that decided that these weren't covered services and that Ms.

[00:03:17] Speaker 04:
Reiser owes them.

[00:03:19] Speaker 05:
If I can ask you about this document, for the other services, it has a code N329, missing, incomplete, invalid patient birth date.

[00:03:29] Speaker 05:
Yes.

[00:03:29] Speaker 05:
And is there anything of record?

[00:03:31] Speaker 05:
I couldn't find it.

[00:03:32] Speaker 05:
I mean, who provided the incorrect patient

[00:03:36] Speaker 05:
date of birth.

[00:03:37] Speaker 04:
So thank you for that question because I feel like the trial court was confused about that.

[00:03:42] Speaker 04:
These communications are specifically between the hospital and DSHS.

[00:03:47] Speaker 04:
If you look at the address that this was mailed to, it was sent to the hospital.

[00:03:51] Speaker 04:
Medicaid patients do not get involved in their own Medicaid billing.

[00:03:54] Speaker 04:
They're not part of the process.

[00:03:56] Speaker 04:
And Ms.

[00:03:56] Speaker 04:
Riser was not part of this process.

[00:03:58] Speaker 04:
Ms.

[00:03:59] Speaker 04:
Riser presented to the hospital.

[00:04:00] Speaker 04:
She personally was covered by Blue Cross Blue Shield and Medicaid.

[00:04:05] Speaker 04:
because of her age.

[00:04:06] Speaker 04:
She was covered by her mother's Blue Cross Blue Shield policy.

[00:04:10] Speaker 04:
This issue here is specifically to her infant daughter.

[00:04:15] Speaker 04:
And what the trial court held was that, well, it's possible that Blue Cross Blue Shield provided coverage for the infant.

[00:04:21] Speaker 04:
That's not possible.

[00:04:22] Speaker 04:
The infant is the granddaughter of the policy holder.

[00:04:25] Speaker 04:
And there is no EOB or any other information in the file that suggests that that infant was covered by her grandmother's Blue Cross policy.

[00:04:34] Speaker 04:
The only evidence that we have in the record is that that infant was covered by Medicaid.

[00:04:38] Speaker 04:
And the only portion of the Medicaid bill that was not covered was the 2344.

[00:04:42] Speaker 05:
Yeah, but I'm still trying to figure out, and maybe it's not clear in the record, who, obviously Medicaid thought the date of birth is invalid or incomplete, but who was responsible for that?

[00:04:55] Speaker 04:
Who was responsible for providing that information to Medicaid?

[00:04:58] Speaker 05:
Yes.

[00:04:58] Speaker 04:
The hospital.

[00:04:59] Speaker 04:
And that's why it's hard.

[00:05:00] Speaker 05:
Well, I guess I know it's the hospital's the one that provides it.

[00:05:02] Speaker 05:
But was it Ms.

[00:05:03] Speaker 05:
Reiser who provided that inaccurate information?

[00:05:05] Speaker 05:
Or do we not know?

[00:05:06] Speaker 05:
I mean, is it something she put the wrong date or didn't provide it?

[00:05:08] Speaker 05:
Or is it the hospital made an error in transmitting it?

[00:05:11] Speaker 05:
Is there anything in the record that shows what caused that error?

[00:05:14] Speaker 04:
There is nothing specific in the record that says that.

[00:05:17] Speaker 04:
But I think that we can glean from the circumstances themselves, Your Honor, exactly what happened.

[00:05:20] Speaker 04:
The child was born at this facility.

[00:05:23] Speaker 04:
And this bill was submitted two days later.

[00:05:25] Speaker 04:
Ms.

[00:05:26] Speaker 04:
Reiser did not submit the bill.

[00:05:27] Speaker 04:
So if anyone got the date of birth wrong, it was actually the facility where the child was born.

[00:05:33] Speaker 04:
Ms.

[00:05:34] Speaker 04:
Reiser doesn't check into the hospital and say, hey, here's my Medicaid and I want you to cover services for these specific things.

[00:05:42] Speaker 04:
She presents her Medicaid card, which they clearly had because they billed Medicaid and got paid $25,000.

[00:05:49] Speaker 04:
If there was a discrepancy in the date of birth, that is not paperwork that Ms.

[00:05:53] Speaker 04:
Reiser would have filled out.

[00:05:54] Speaker 04:
It's paperwork that the hospital would have filled out and it's quite shocking that they got it wrong given the fact that the child was born there and the bill was submitted just a day or two later.

[00:06:03] Speaker 04:
But there is nothing in the record that would suggest that Ms.

[00:06:06] Speaker 04:
Reiser either intentionally or unintentionally wrote down an incorrect date of birth for her daughter that she had just given birth to.

[00:06:13] Speaker 05:
And what we do... On a similar note, is there anything in the record that shows who was at fault in terms of, I guess, the mailing address?

[00:06:21] Speaker 05:
Because later on, the hospital tries to get additional information from her, but I guess it's returned back to the hospital as undeliverable.

[00:06:30] Speaker 05:
Is there anything in the record that shows what went wrong,

[00:06:33] Speaker 04:
what happened there if i can direct the court's attention to your five seventy seven that is the billing notes and it's unclear to this day whether the start with the provider and and go to the the collection agency when it's referred if this is a an amalgamation of both of theirs but it it says that they sent bills and those bills were returned and

[00:06:55] Speaker 04:
That's part of what the problem here is, Your Honor, is that when this was assigned to the collection agency, the collection agency did a search.

[00:07:02] Speaker 04:
They found out where Ms.

[00:07:03] Speaker 04:
Reiser actually resided.

[00:07:04] Speaker 04:
There was a letter that was returned because it was a bad address.

[00:07:09] Speaker 04:
They knew where she lived because they did a search through a credit reporting agency and turned around and sent the second letter to the same bad address rather than the good one.

[00:07:18] Speaker 04:
Ms.

[00:07:19] Speaker 04:
Reiser did not find out about this bill until she saw it on her credit report.

[00:07:23] Speaker 04:
And she sought on her credit report because she was trying to purchase the property that her and her children lived at.

[00:07:30] Speaker 04:
And in order to do that, she had to take out a small loan.

[00:07:33] Speaker 04:
And that's when she learned that not only this debt, but 11 other debts were being reported by Central on her credit report.

[00:07:39] Speaker 04:
Had she known prior?

[00:07:41] Speaker 04:
I think the record's clear about what would have happened.

[00:07:44] Speaker 04:
As soon as she found out about this, she jumped on it.

[00:07:46] Speaker 04:
She talked to the hospital.

[00:07:47] Speaker 04:
She submitted a dispute to the credit reporting agency.

[00:07:52] Speaker 04:
And this was eventually charged off because she didn't owe it.

[00:07:56] Speaker 04:
She did everything that she could.

[00:07:57] Speaker 04:
She submitted packages, charity care packages.

[00:08:00] Speaker 04:
She even called the attorney general.

[00:08:01] Speaker 05:
Can you explain that you're saying that the hospital knew the correct address?

[00:08:05] Speaker 05:
And how would the hospital know that?

[00:08:07] Speaker 04:
From these notes, it is difficult to know exactly what the hospital knew about her correct address.

[00:08:13] Speaker 04:
What we know is that they mailed documents, supposedly, to an address that were returned, and then they assigned it.

[00:08:18] Speaker 05:
Do we know what that address was or whose fault that was?

[00:08:23] Speaker 04:
Is the court questioning whether or not she had given a false address?

[00:08:27] Speaker 05:
An incorrect address?

[00:08:30] Speaker 04:
I think what happened was that she moved after she gave birth.

[00:08:33] Speaker 05:
Do we know in the record what happened?

[00:08:35] Speaker 05:
from the record.

[00:08:36] Speaker 05:
I couldn't tell, so I'm just asking you.

[00:08:38] Speaker 04:
I don't believe so.

[00:08:39] Speaker 04:
I don't believe it's in the record, Your Honor.

[00:08:41] Speaker 04:
I believe they sent it to her old address that she enrolled at the hospital with.

[00:08:46] Speaker 04:
And I don't think that she lived there anymore.

[00:08:48] Speaker 01:
Did I understand correctly that your argument?

[00:08:51] Speaker 01:
I thought your argument in some ways didn't turn on.

[00:08:53] Speaker 01:
Because your argument was that she just had no obligation whatsoever to provide any of this information to the hospital.

[00:09:02] Speaker 04:
Oh, absolutely not, Your Honor.

[00:09:04] Speaker 04:
Before she even gave birth, when she checked in, she gave them her Blue Cross coverage, and she gave them her Medicaid coverage.

[00:09:09] Speaker 04:
That's why this EOB shows that Medicaid paid $25,000.

[00:09:12] Speaker 04:
She provided all of that information to them.

[00:09:16] Speaker 04:
Our position is that because she provided Medicaid, the hospital knew that she was covered by Medicaid, and this is a bill that was covered by Medicaid, they can't bill her.

[00:09:26] Speaker 04:
It's called balance billing, and it's not allowed.

[00:09:29] Speaker 02:
I'm trying to figure out on the address, you said that you think it was a prior address.

[00:09:35] Speaker 02:
Does she move after maybe it was born, or what happened?

[00:09:38] Speaker 02:
Does the record say, does the record?

[00:09:40] Speaker 04:
It doesn't reflect that, Your Honor.

[00:09:41] Speaker 02:
It just doesn't reflect, okay.

[00:09:45] Speaker 04:
What we do know from the record is that when Central became involved, when this account was assigned to Central for collections, Central was able to obtain the correct address, and they mailed the collection letter to the wrong address anyway.

[00:10:03] Speaker 04:
So again, this case turns on the question of whether or not there is an inaccuracy.

[00:10:08] Speaker 04:
And from these official government documents, what it shows is that at most she owed $23.44.

[00:10:15] Speaker 04:
What was credit reported was almost $2,800.

[00:10:18] Speaker 04:
That is an incorrect balance.

[00:10:20] Speaker 04:
These documents show that there's no way that she owed that balance.

[00:10:22] Speaker 04:
And so the question is this.

[00:10:24] Speaker 04:
What happens when a medical debt collection agency credit reports a medical debt in a balance that's not appropriate, that's inflated, that's inaccurate?

[00:10:34] Speaker 04:
And the Fair Debt Collection Practices act as a strict liability statute that just doesn't provide for that.

[00:10:40] Speaker 04:
If it happens, they're strictly liable.

[00:10:42] Speaker 04:
There is one affirmative defense available, and it's called the bona fide error defense.

[00:10:46] Speaker 04:
It wasn't even pled in this case.

[00:10:48] Speaker 04:
So the court doesn't even need to address it.

[00:10:52] Speaker 04:
excuses and reasons why this happened, but the fact of the matter is the collection agency credit reported an erroneously inflated balance.

[00:11:00] Speaker 04:
It was inaccurate.

[00:11:02] Speaker 04:
As far as TransUnion is concerned, TransUnion failed or refused to follow the very first most important step of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

[00:11:11] Speaker 04:
The statute says that they have a grave responsibility to assure maximum possible accuracy and to do that they have a responsibility to communicate consumer disputes to the companies that are credit reporting those accounts.

[00:11:25] Speaker 04:
TransUnion in this case unapologetically admits that they just didn't do it.

[00:11:29] Speaker 04:
They waited till the end of the road and said, well, if we had done that, it might have created a legal dispute.

[00:11:36] Speaker 04:
Those are hypotheticals that they're not proper for court.

[00:11:39] Speaker 04:
We deal in law and facts, and we don't know what would have happened.

[00:11:43] Speaker 04:
What we do know from Central's deposition is that if they had received the dispute from TransUnion, they would have investigated it.

[00:11:52] Speaker 04:
That's what we know for certain.

[00:11:53] Speaker 04:
They were deprived of that opportunity.

[00:11:57] Speaker 04:
Carvalho tells us that the furniture is in the best position to investigate and adjudicate these disputes.

[00:12:04] Speaker 04:
That cannot happen.

[00:12:05] Speaker 04:
We can't even give full credit to Carvalho if TransUnion doesn't actually communicate the dispute to the furniture.

[00:12:12] Speaker 02:
It deprives everyone in the... In your view, TransUnion, I take it, would not have had to research any legal defenses or draw any legal conclusions to report this.

[00:12:23] Speaker 04:
No, no.

[00:12:25] Speaker 04:
And if this case had followed the path of Carvalho, where the consumer disputed to the credit reporting agency, the credit reporting agency actually communicated that dispute to the furniture, and if Central had come back and said, no, we have investigated this and verified that it's accurate, in that posture, I don't think there would be a claim against TransUnion.

[00:12:46] Speaker 04:
But that didn't happen.

[00:12:47] Speaker 04:
So the claim against TransUnion is not, hey, TransUnion, please fix all these problems with this account.

[00:12:52] Speaker 04:
It was just, hey, TransUnion, please communicate this dispute to Central so that they know and so that I have rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

[00:13:00] Speaker 04:
But by TransUnion depriving Ms.

[00:13:03] Speaker 04:
Reiser and Central of the ability to investigate this dispute, it left Ms.

[00:13:08] Speaker 04:
Reiser with absolutely no cause of action for having her credit destroyed to the point that it caused her to be temporarily homeless.

[00:13:16] Speaker 04:
If they don't have notice, then they are not liable under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

[00:13:21] Speaker 04:
And that's TransUnion's fault that she was deprived of a cause of action.

[00:13:25] Speaker 04:
So what we have here is a bizarre result where a person who had two insurances, Blue Cross Blue Shield for herself, Medicaid for herself, Medicaid for her child, she provided all of that information to the hospital.

[00:13:37] Speaker 04:
The hospital was under a consent decree where they knew that they were supposed to be doing a better job.

[00:13:44] Speaker 04:
There was charity care.

[00:13:45] Speaker 04:
That person left the hospital and had her finances destroyed anyway.

[00:13:50] Speaker 04:
It shouldn't stand that that's just okay because it might have created a legal dispute.

[00:13:56] Speaker 04:
And central essentially for credit reporting the original incorrect balance doesn't have a defense because the balance was incorrect however you view these documents.

[00:14:06] Speaker 04:
Central knew their notes, 577 says, insurance verification complete for Medicaid provider one.

[00:14:13] Speaker 04:
They knew that Medicaid was the provider one for this infant.

[00:14:16] Speaker 04:
Subscriber coverage is active.

[00:14:19] Speaker 04:
Details show 276693 allowed, 2344 not allowed.

[00:14:28] Speaker 04:
Washington Medicaid is mentioned five times in these collection notes.

[00:14:32] Speaker 04:
So they knew that there was Medicaid coverage.

[00:14:34] Speaker 04:
They knew that Medicaid was the primary coverage for this infant.

[00:14:39] Speaker 04:
They knew that the only amount that wasn't allowed was 2344.

[00:14:43] Speaker 04:
They credit reported this at their own peril, and there is no defense for that under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

[00:14:51] Speaker 04:
It's an attempt to collect an amount that's not owed.

[00:14:54] Speaker 04:
So I will reserve my remaining 15 seconds for... We'll give you two minutes.

[00:15:00] Speaker 05:
Okay.

[00:15:00] Speaker 05:
Additional two minutes.

[00:15:01] Speaker 05:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:15:03] Speaker 05:
I understand the appellees will share your time, eight minutes and seven minutes.

[00:15:19] Speaker 00:
Good morning.

[00:15:19] Speaker 00:
I'm Camille Nicodemus, and I'm representing Defendant Apoly Credit Reporting Agency TransUnion.

[00:15:27] Speaker 00:
The detail that was just described by counsel for plaintiff with regard to the Medicaid statutes, the interpretation of those statutes, references to illegal billing processes, and so on, make it very clear that plaintiff's claim in this case rests wholly on a defense, a legal defense to the debt.

[00:15:51] Speaker 00:
Not a factual inaccuracy on the debt, but a legal defense, simply stating that part

[00:15:57] Speaker 00:
the hospital bill was attributable to her and the rest was not due to the application of Medicaid or some consent decree is still in fact an assertion of a legal defense to the debt which credit reporting agencies like TransUnion are just simply not obligated and not equipped to investigate.

[00:16:23] Speaker 00:
Simply because there was an outcome in this case in which plaintiff does not have a cause of action against central portfolio does not mean that the clear strictures of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and the case law in this and other circuits interpreting it are wrong.

[00:16:40] Speaker 00:
Plaintiff, in fact, did not dispute directly with TransUnion in this case

[00:16:45] Speaker 00:
Now, TransUnion was let out on a motion on the pleadings, so we really only need to look at what was alleged in the complaint.

[00:16:52] Speaker 00:
But the case did proceed to discovery, and in that discovery, it was uncovered that plaintiff did not dispute with TransUnion.

[00:16:59] Speaker 00:
She contacted a credit reporting agency called Lifeline Solutions.

[00:17:07] Speaker 00:
in connection with her bad credit.

[00:17:10] Speaker 00:
In addition to this central portfolio account, she had a number of other unpaid bills, and she went to this organization to try to clean up her credit.

[00:17:19] Speaker 00:
Oftentimes, those organizations are not really doing the best service to consumers.

[00:17:26] Speaker 00:
They wrote letters to TransUnion, and when those letters come from a third party and they do not come directly from the consumer, TransUnion has no obligation to investigate.

[00:17:36] Speaker 05:
Can you address your friend's point that because that there was a kind of chain reaction here because TransUnion didn't investigate, then the furnishers, you know, weren't able to do their job, etc.

[00:17:48] Speaker 05:
Can you address his point there that I think it's more practical, not necessarily legal in the sense of where you rely on Carvalho, but that create kind of a chain reaction to the detriment of Mr. Iser.

[00:17:57] Speaker 00:
Absolutely.

[00:17:58] Speaker 00:
And this court in Carvalho and also in Gross made it clear that the CRAs can't be held responsible for what plaintiff's obligation is, which is to contact the furnisher of the debt directly.

[00:18:11] Speaker 00:
The central portfolio account was reporting on her trans union credit file.

[00:18:15] Speaker 00:
It had a telephone number.

[00:18:17] Speaker 00:
It had an address.

[00:18:19] Speaker 00:
And in addition to not directly disputing with TransUnion, the consumer did not directly dispute with Central Portfolio.

[00:18:25] Speaker 00:
Now, the Fair Credit Reporting Act provides for this direct dispute to Central Portfolio.

[00:18:32] Speaker 00:
She chose not to do that.

[00:18:34] Speaker 00:
The case law points out that oftentimes the furnisher, particularly in these legal dispute cases, is in the best position to dig into that

[00:18:43] Speaker 00:
and find out what happened, to go back maybe to the hospital to look at the documents, to take a review of what their rights and obligations are to collect Medicaid debt, Medicare debt in the state of Washington.

[00:18:55] Speaker 00:
That's not something TransUnion could do.

[00:18:58] Speaker 00:
So there's a very logical and good reason for the courts noting that this is plaintiff's best avenue.

[00:19:06] Speaker 00:
is because for two reasons.

[00:19:08] Speaker 00:
Number one, that's the best way to get to the bottom of it.

[00:19:11] Speaker 00:
Contacting TransUnion as a go-between on a legal dispute with the level of complexity obvious in this case would not serve plaintiff's interests whatsoever.

[00:19:22] Speaker 00:
And there's a very good reason that the Fair Credit Reporting Act is not a strict liability statute.

[00:19:29] Speaker 00:
TransUnion can escape

[00:19:31] Speaker 00:
reporting inaccurate information if it used reasonable procedures, and TransUnion can escape faulty procedures if it reported factually accurate information.

[00:19:42] Speaker 00:
Here, it reported factually accurate information

[00:19:45] Speaker 00:
Plaintiff may very well have what she claims is a legal defense.

[00:19:49] Speaker 00:
The court ultimately at the end of discovery did not conclude that, concluded that in fact the debt was not covered and that it was ultimately discharged under a charitable gift of the hospital.

[00:20:04] Speaker 00:
They took a look at the debt and under their charity program,

[00:20:06] Speaker 02:
But all TransUnion had to do is just state that it's a dispute.

[00:20:11] Speaker 02:
It didn't have to research the dispute.

[00:20:13] Speaker 02:
It didn't have to determine it was a valid dispute.

[00:20:15] Speaker 02:
I mean, why isn't that just a factual matter that she was disputing?

[00:20:20] Speaker 00:
Well, a couple things.

[00:20:22] Speaker 00:
First, in this case, let's not forget that she didn't dispute to TransUnion.

[00:20:26] Speaker 00:
A letter was written from a credit repair organization, and the law provides that TransUnion does not have to reinvestigate that.

[00:20:34] Speaker 00:
TransUnion also doesn't have to investigate frivolous or irrelevant types of disputes that come to them that are repetitive.

[00:20:43] Speaker 00:
If the account's not on file, if there's some piece of information that the consumer is disputing, like an address or a phone number,

[00:20:50] Speaker 00:
Those are not actionable.

[00:20:52] Speaker 00:
Those are not credit information that could be accurate or inaccurate.

[00:20:56] Speaker 00:
There are numbers of different circumstances under which the Consumer Reporting Agency is not going to contact the furnisher.

[00:21:04] Speaker 00:
directly, and these very complicated legal disputes are one of them.

[00:21:08] Speaker 00:
And the reason for that is simply that if the investigation cannot uncover whether or not this legal defense existed, then it simply isn't a factual dispute.

[00:21:22] Speaker 00:
There are other factual disputes that if the Consumer Reporting Agency conducted a reinvestigation and didn't uncover it,

[00:21:30] Speaker 00:
You know, one can say, well, there are courts that have used the standard readily and objectively verifiable as opposed to a legal dispute, right?

[00:21:41] Speaker 00:
If it's something that can't be uncovered through reasonable, normal procedures,

[00:21:46] Speaker 00:
then they cannot be held liable for that.

[00:21:49] Speaker 00:
And in this case, plaintiff's issues, plaintiff's damages, plaintiff's problem are those of her own making.

[00:21:55] Speaker 00:
She did not contact Central Portfolio, and she also did not contact TransUnion directly.

[00:22:00] Speaker 00:
And TransUnion had no obligation to research or investigate this very, very complex legal issue that involved statutes,

[00:22:09] Speaker 00:
consent decrees, obligations between the state of Washington, between the hospital itself, and plaintiff's obligations.

[00:22:17] Speaker 00:
Plaintiff had certain obligations as well, just based on things that plaintiff's counsel is saying and what the record ultimately looked like.

[00:22:26] Speaker 00:
But the motion for judgment on the pleadings that was granted in TransUnion's favor was granted based on

[00:22:34] Speaker 00:
the clear-cut allegations in plaintiff's complaint.

[00:22:36] Speaker 00:
And those allegations clearly stated she had a legal defense to this debt.

[00:22:41] Speaker 00:
That is her claim.

[00:22:43] Speaker 00:
And the long-standing precedent in the Ninth Circuit, in the first under DeAndre, in the seventh under Deenan, in the tenth under Wright, in the second under Sesser and Mehta, is that this is not actionable.

[00:22:57] Speaker 00:
You cannot hold TransUnion liable for

[00:23:01] Speaker 00:
anything having to do with the reinvestigation at all.

[00:23:06] Speaker 00:
The language in Carvalho and Gross is very clear.

[00:23:08] Speaker 00:
You don't reach the question of the reinvestigation.

[00:23:11] Speaker 00:
And the district court very correctly applied those facts to this case.

[00:23:16] Speaker 00:
Carvalho is virtually the same set of facts.

[00:23:19] Speaker 00:
Again, a medical debt.

[00:23:20] Speaker 00:
Again, a complaint that she did not have a debt.

[00:23:24] Speaker 00:
One other quick thing.

[00:23:30] Speaker 00:
plaintiff's counsel refers to the grave responsibility in the Fair Credit Reporting Act, misstating it as a grave responsibility to forward all disputes to the furnisher.

[00:23:41] Speaker 00:
In fact, it's a grave responsibility to use reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy.

[00:23:50] Speaker 00:
It does not hold that specific requirement.

[00:23:53] Speaker 00:
And to parse out or take apart a requirement to furnish the dispute,

[00:24:00] Speaker 00:
take that away from the obligation to reinvestigate, which does have exceptions to it and also is by its own language.

[00:24:09] Speaker 00:
The Fair Court Reporting Act limits reinvestigations to a dispute of inaccurate information, not a dispute that I have a defense to that information.

[00:24:20] Speaker 00:
And so not only does Carvalho and

[00:24:23] Speaker 00:
its progeny hold that, but the language of the Fair Credit Reporting Act itself, which Congress carefully crafted with regard to these obligations.

[00:24:32] Speaker 00:
And plaintiffs' choice to not do a direct dispute is the cause of her issues in this case.

[00:24:40] Speaker 05:
Great.

[00:24:40] Speaker 05:
Thank you.

[00:24:41] Speaker 00:
Thank you.

[00:25:05] Speaker 03:
May it please the court, I'm John Rossman.

[00:25:08] Speaker 03:
I'm an attorney with the Rossman Attorney Group, and I represent Central Portfolio Control.

[00:25:13] Speaker 03:
My client is a small company located in the prairie of Minnesota.

[00:25:17] Speaker 03:
It's actually located in Eden Prairie, Minnesota, and it's a family-owned business.

[00:25:22] Speaker 03:
It's been around for 25 years.

[00:25:25] Speaker 03:
I've represented Central Portfolio Control since 2000, so I'm proud to be a Minnesotan as well.

[00:25:31] Speaker 03:
When I started representing this company in 2000, it was about 10 employees.

[00:25:35] Speaker 03:
Today, it probably has 135.

[00:25:36] Speaker 01:
I'm going to see if I can get you to focus on something.

[00:25:39] Speaker 01:
Yes.

[00:25:40] Speaker 01:
Can you walk me through, as quick as you can, what your client did to, well, not just your client, but the hospital, to try to contact the plaintiff in this case?

[00:25:56] Speaker 01:
Because it seems like, to the extent that you're saying the plaintiff

[00:25:59] Speaker 01:
had a responsibility to coordinate with us and work with us.

[00:26:03] Speaker 01:
I'm trying to figure out whether there's a disputed issue of material fact about that that would have prevented

[00:26:08] Speaker 01:
decision at this point in the case or whether or not there's undisputed facts that are sufficient to justify the district court's order.

[00:26:17] Speaker 01:
So specifically, what did the hospital do and what did your client do?

[00:26:22] Speaker 03:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:26:22] Speaker 03:
Yes, and I can walk through the chronology on that.

[00:26:25] Speaker 03:
So on October 23rd, 2015, about nine years ago earlier this week, this debt, the account, was incurred.

[00:26:33] Speaker 03:
And this was, as has been identified, a debt for the infant.

[00:26:37] Speaker 03:
It's shown that the Medicaid was denied a few days later.

[00:26:41] Speaker 01:
One of the notes that we talked about... Your point is that, well, I mean, the fact that you billed Medicaid for it would seem to, you could assume that she provided some sort of Medicaid card or something in order for you to have done that.

[00:26:57] Speaker 01:
So she provided something in that respect.

[00:26:59] Speaker 03:
There's no doubt about that.

[00:27:01] Speaker 03:
However, it's clear from the documents produced that there was no Medicare coverage for the child until December 1st, 2016.

[00:27:11] Speaker 03:
And if you look at the explanation of Benefit document, which is located at ER 613, it's a document that was produced by plaintiff, and it specifically identifies the infant

[00:27:29] Speaker 03:
and it shows the eligibility start date for the infant as December 1, 2016.

[00:27:34] Speaker 03:
So to the extent there is an argument that there was no Medicare coverage, it's clear from the document produced by plaintiff that there was no Medicare coverage until nearly a year after this debt was incurred.

[00:27:48] Speaker 03:
Furthermore, with respect to the address, you had asked about the address and what attempts were made to communicate with the consumer, and there's a reference to this ER577.

[00:27:59] Speaker 03:
And in that document, put to it here, it specifically references the efforts that were made by the healthcare provider to communicate with the consumer.

[00:28:12] Speaker 03:
And there's a note here, it's dated August 2021, that states that the healthcare provider was unable to communicate with the consumer.

[00:28:23] Speaker 03:
And I'm gonna get the exact quote here.

[00:28:28] Speaker 01:
Did you say August 2021?

[00:28:32] Speaker 02:
You're on, you're on five 77.

[00:28:41] Speaker 03:
August 20th, 2016, there's a note there that says mail out, and I apologize.

[00:28:46] Speaker 03:
So that was August 20th, 2016 that my client, or the healthcare provider rather, was trying to communicate with the consumer.

[00:28:53] Speaker 03:
I want to point out one other document, and that is document ER610.

[00:29:03] Speaker 03:
And ER610 demonstrates that on July 14th, 2016,

[00:29:09] Speaker 03:
the infant was at the hospital for treatment.

[00:29:12] Speaker 03:
So like a month before, was it one month and five days before, the hospital tried to send this notice to the guarantor, the appellant.

[00:29:23] Speaker 03:
The appellant was at the healthcare provider receiving services for the infant.

[00:29:28] Speaker 03:
Now, I have two adult daughters now, but when I presented them for treatment in the past, one thing that the health care provider will ask is, please verify this information.

[00:29:36] Speaker 03:
So what we do know from the record is that July 2016, the patient is at the hospital.

[00:29:43] Speaker 03:
August 2016, the mail is undeliverable.

[00:29:46] Speaker 02:
We don't know whether she was asked to verify.

[00:29:49] Speaker 02:
We do not.

[00:29:50] Speaker 03:
We do not.

[00:29:50] Speaker 03:
But we know that she was at the hospital at that time, because we have that in the record here.

[00:29:54] Speaker 05:
Can you address, you've kind of done it, but can you address the same question I asked your friend on the other side?

[00:30:02] Speaker 05:
Is there anything in the record that shows who was at fault?

[00:30:07] Speaker 05:
To me, it's even unclear why some of these claims are denied.

[00:30:10] Speaker 05:
It was maybe incorrect date of birth, or maybe Medicaid thought there was Blue Cross coverage, other third payer coverage.

[00:30:17] Speaker 05:
It's not clear to me from the record.

[00:30:20] Speaker 05:
Who was at fault here?

[00:30:22] Speaker 05:
Is there anything in the record that shows, you know, maybe it was a hospital that provided the wrong date of birth, maybe it was Ms.

[00:30:26] Speaker 05:
Riser.

[00:30:27] Speaker 05:
Is there anything that shows what happened here that caused this error?

[00:30:31] Speaker 03:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:30:32] Speaker 03:
The district court stated in its order that there isn't any evidence that the hospital made a mistake.

[00:30:37] Speaker 03:
I've gone through the record.

[00:30:38] Speaker 03:
I think we've all gone through the record.

[00:30:39] Speaker 03:
It's unclear as to exactly what happened.

[00:30:42] Speaker 03:
What we do know is that the record reflects that the infant did not have this Medicaid coverage until more than a year after the debt was incurred.

[00:30:49] Speaker 03:
So we can argue about whether it was a correct code, whether it was premarital coverage, whether it was Medicare or Washington Apple Health.

[00:30:57] Speaker 03:
But the document that we have evidence that there was no coverage whatsoever for.

[00:31:01] Speaker 03:
Medicaid at that time.

[00:31:02] Speaker 03:
I want to point out one other thing on ER 610.

[00:31:05] Speaker 03:
Sorry.

[00:31:06] Speaker 05:
What is the significance of the document?

[00:31:07] Speaker 05:
Unfortunately, I don't have the ER site, but that said something along the lines of Medicaid has allowed charges of $2,700.

[00:31:15] Speaker 05:
What does that document signify?

[00:31:17] Speaker 03:
So that was a note.

[00:31:19] Speaker 03:
As I understand it, that was a note from the hospital health care provider's billing system, where someone was talking to Medicare, or perhaps on the website, writing down information.

[00:31:30] Speaker 03:
That wasn't an approval.

[00:31:31] Speaker 03:
That was information that the health care provider received.

[00:31:35] Speaker 03:
The evidence regarding whether or not there was Medicaid coverage is this document that I referenced, which says that no, there was no Medicaid coverage until nearly a year later.

[00:31:43] Speaker 03:
One other thing, Your Honor, I'd like to point out is that there was some insurance coverage

[00:31:47] Speaker 03:
around that time.

[00:31:49] Speaker 03:
If we look back at this ER 610, this document I referenced a second ago, it also references a hospital visit from December 30, 2015.

[00:31:58] Speaker 03:
And if you look on the right-hand side, it talks about an insurance payment of, excuse me,

[00:32:06] Speaker 03:
$317.44.

[00:32:06] Speaker 03:
So here we have about two months after the infant was born and the health care bill at question was incurred, we show that there was some type of insurance coverage that the hospital received a partial payment on.

[00:32:25] Speaker 03:
I apologize, I'm out of time.

[00:32:26] Speaker 05:
If you want to continue Thank you.

[00:32:28] Speaker 03:
I appreciate it.

[00:32:30] Speaker 03:
So with respect to the with respect to the address It is correct that my client sent the same or sent a collection letter the same address.

[00:32:38] Speaker 03:
I'd like to posit to the court that it's not Unfathomable that a person could have the same address twice.

[00:32:45] Speaker 03:
Certainly.

[00:32:45] Speaker 03:
This is a person who was on her mother's insurance policy at the time it's possible that a person could move in with her parents and then move somewhere else and

[00:32:54] Speaker 03:
So I don't think it's inconceivable that my client sent two collection letters to the same address.

[00:33:01] Speaker 03:
One was returned as undeliverable.

[00:33:02] Speaker 03:
It is possible that second letter could have been received.

[00:33:05] Speaker 03:
It wasn't.

[00:33:06] Speaker 01:
I understand it wasn't, but it's not inconceivable that the address was... On the phone call, there was something about phone... Was it UL or the hospital that tried to make phone calls?

[00:33:14] Speaker 03:
So my client did try to make a phone call, and as I understand, the hospital also tried to make a phone call from the record, but there was no connection.

[00:33:22] Speaker 03:
One thing about phone calls that I want to point out, Your Honor, is that when plaintiff did pull her credit bureau, the credit bureau report has the information from my client right there.

[00:33:32] Speaker 03:
She could have contacted my client in May 2020 when she had her credit bureau and said, hey, what's going on?

[00:33:38] Speaker 03:
Instead, she hired this credit repair organization that sent this odd dispute letter.

[00:33:43] Speaker 03:
You know, so there was an opportunity there.

[00:33:45] Speaker 03:
The information was there.

[00:33:47] Speaker 03:
So when we look at what are the responsibilities to communicate, there is also some responsibility there to at least take some steps.

[00:33:56] Speaker 03:
I have nothing further.

[00:33:57] Speaker 03:
Thank you.

[00:33:58] Speaker 05:
Thank you.

[00:34:18] Speaker 04:
Very briefly, I'll be very brief.

[00:34:20] Speaker 04:
What we've seen here today is that there are too many genuine issues of material fact remaining in dispute.

[00:34:26] Speaker 04:
There are just too many questions to be answered that need to be developed through discovery and they need to be presented to a jury.

[00:34:33] Speaker 04:
This record is replete with confusion.

[00:34:37] Speaker 04:
My opposing counsel states that...

[00:34:39] Speaker 01:
On that, can you give me some specifics as to what creates an issue of a genuine material fact about your client having sort of done something to communicate with or coordinate with or some sort of with the, it sounds like she may have provided a

[00:35:01] Speaker 01:
I don't know if you can hear me.

[00:35:05] Speaker 01:
I don't know if you can hear me.

[00:35:16] Speaker 01:
that there was any communication.

[00:35:18] Speaker 01:
I understood you to be arguing that she had no responsibility.

[00:35:20] Speaker 01:
When I looked at page three of your opening brief, it basically seemed like you were saying, we had no response.

[00:35:25] Speaker 01:
That was between the hospital and Medicaid.

[00:35:27] Speaker 01:
That wasn't to coordinate this.

[00:35:29] Speaker 01:
So what did you have that she communicated with them?

[00:35:32] Speaker 04:
It's the question that the panel has asked repeatedly, and that's whether or not she ever received notice that she had a bill.

[00:35:39] Speaker 04:
What would a jury think about that?

[00:35:41] Speaker 04:
If Jim Arizer provided her insurance coverage, gave birth to a child, bills were paid, she left, and never even knew that there was a remaining bill, what are her responsibilities?

[00:35:54] Speaker 04:
And that's something for a jury to decide.

[00:35:57] Speaker 04:
Did she act reasonably?

[00:35:58] Speaker 04:
Did the defendants act reasonably?

[00:36:01] Speaker 04:
That's what a jury needs to decide.

[00:36:04] Speaker 04:
And so there are statements here that she didn't have Medicaid coverage for the baby until a year later, right?

[00:36:11] Speaker 04:
Well, this EOB 569 specifically says that Medicaid paid over $25,000.

[00:36:17] Speaker 04:
It's not possible that she didn't have Medicaid coverage if Medicaid paid over $25,000.

[00:36:24] Speaker 05:
Perhaps a very basic question that I'm not familiar with.

[00:36:26] Speaker 05:
So for the birth of a baby, who is charged?

[00:36:31] Speaker 05:
Is it the mother or the baby?

[00:36:34] Speaker 04:
It always falls, for the first 21 days, it always falls under the mother's guarantor number.

[00:36:41] Speaker 04:
Okay?

[00:36:42] Speaker 04:
And that is the Aaron Act.

[00:36:43] Speaker 04:
Washington State has a specific RCW.

[00:36:45] Speaker 04:
It's called the Aaron Act, and it says that that baby, if the mother has any form of Medicaid, that baby is covered under her guarantor number.

[00:36:53] Speaker 05:
So it doesn't matter whether the baby was under Medicaid coverage, the paperwork wasn't done because it would be billed to the mother who gave birth.

[00:37:01] Speaker 04:
Exactly, Your Honor.

[00:37:02] Speaker 04:
So for the first 21 days under the Aaron Act,

[00:37:06] Speaker 04:
that baby is automatically covered under the mom.

[00:37:08] Speaker 04:
Then the mom has a responsibility to go enroll that child in Medicaid.

[00:37:12] Speaker 04:
But for the first 21 days of that baby's life, it is absolutely covered under the mother's guarantor.

[00:37:18] Speaker 04:
I think that might be why we got into the issue of the date of birth.

[00:37:21] Speaker 04:
I think that the guarantor number was Ms.

[00:37:24] Speaker 04:
Reiser's guarantor number.

[00:37:25] Speaker 04:
And I think they put the baby's date of birth in there, and I think that's why Medicaid said, hey, this date of birth issue, you've got to clear this up, and then you'll get paid for these.

[00:37:33] Speaker 04:
But this explanation of benefits, it's from Washington State DSHS to St.

[00:37:38] Speaker 04:
Joseph's.

[00:37:38] Speaker 04:
It specifically shows that the child had Medicaid coverage.

[00:37:41] Speaker 01:
Where does, yeah, you might, I'm sorry.

[00:37:43] Speaker 01:
Yes, sir.

[00:37:43] Speaker 01:
Let me again to where the $25,000, in the record it talks about Medicaid paying $25,000.

[00:37:49] Speaker 04:
It is ER569.

[00:37:49] Speaker 04:
59.

[00:37:52] Speaker 04:
569 I apologize 569 and up towards the top its exhibit be Up towards the top it says payment information in bold and underneath that it says that there was an EFT or a check written And that was written on November 5th now 2015 now recall the baby wasn't born until the 23rd.

[00:38:13] Speaker 04:
They didn't leave the hospital till the 24th so just shortly after they left the hospital and

[00:38:17] Speaker 04:
Medicaid made a $25,435 payment, and as you can see, the patient identification is the child's name, not the mother's name.

[00:38:27] Speaker 04:
So this is the baby's bill.

[00:38:30] Speaker 04:
Clearly, she had coverage.

[00:38:32] Speaker 04:
You go down to the remarks.

[00:38:34] Speaker 04:
Below the adjustments and it says the only non covered portion is a code 96 and code 96 relates to the 2344.

[00:38:43] Speaker 04:
So that's another genuine issue of material fact based on this.

[00:38:46] Speaker 04:
Does Gemma riser Oh 2344 or does she almost $2800 for this bill.

[00:38:53] Speaker 05:
Was there, I assume there was, was there a third-party discovery with the hospital to get documents and depositions here?

[00:39:01] Speaker 04:
There was limited discovery, Your Honor, yes.

[00:39:04] Speaker 04:
That was for the central case.

[00:39:07] Speaker 04:
TransUnion was a 12, rule 12 motion.

[00:39:10] Speaker 04:
With central we were able to engage in some discovery.

[00:39:13] Speaker 04:
We took some depositions and There's there's no other discovery in the record that says that this EOB is incorrect There's no other EOB in the record and what council said about those collection notes is that those are basically

[00:39:28] Speaker 04:
hearsay upon hearsay.

[00:39:29] Speaker 04:
That's someone taking notes based on what the provider said to another company.

[00:39:36] Speaker 04:
So are they trustworthy?

[00:39:38] Speaker 04:
I don't know.

[00:39:38] Speaker 04:
I know that this DSHS document is trustworthy.

[00:39:41] Speaker 04:
I promise to be quick, and so I want to make one point or a couple points on... You've exceeded your time that we already gave you, so make one quick point.

[00:39:48] Speaker 04:
Okay.

[00:39:49] Speaker 04:
TransUnion argues that they have no duty to communicate frivolous disputes or disputes from credit repair organizations.

[00:39:58] Speaker 04:
That is correct.

[00:39:59] Speaker 04:
However, in that circumstance, if they declare that a dispute is frivolous, they have to tell the consumer so that the consumer can redo the dispute.

[00:40:07] Speaker 04:
and engage the process appropriately.

[00:40:09] Speaker 04:
In this case, there is no disputed fact that TransUnion never told Gemmeriser or the company that furnished the dispute to TransUnion that it was frivolous, that it was from a credit repair organization, we're not gonna do anything with this dispute.

[00:40:24] Speaker 04:
Statutorily, the only way that a credit reporting agency gets out of the responsibility of communicating the dispute to the furnisher is if they inform the consumer, and that didn't happen in this case.

[00:40:34] Speaker 04:
Unless there are any other questions, I will sit down.

[00:40:38] Speaker 05:
Great.

[00:40:39] Speaker 05:
Thank you.

[00:40:39] Speaker 05:
Thank you both for a very helpful argument.

[00:40:42] Speaker 05:
The case has been submitted and we are adjourned.