On September 9, the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada granted summary judgment in favor of a debt collector in a case involving alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) based on phone calls the plaintiff received related to her medical debt.
In Woodman v. Medicredit, Inc., the case arose from three separate medical debts assigned to the defendant for collection. The plaintiff retained legal representation in April 2021 for her first two debt accounts and notified the defendant of this representation. However, the third account was placed with the defendant in June 2021, and there was a dispute over when the defendant received notice of representation for this third account, with the plaintiff claiming notice in June and the defendant claiming notice in August.
The plaintiff alleged that she was contacted on six occasions despite the defendant knowing she was represented by counsel, constituting harassment and unfair practices under the FDCPA. Additionally, she claimed that the defendant used an automatic telephone dialing system (ATDS) to contact her without her consent in violation of the TCPA. The defendant contended that any communication with the plaintiff between June and August solely related to the third debt account, when the defendant did not have notice of representation.
For the FDCPA claim, the primary issue was whether the defendant knowingly contacted the plaintiff in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692c(a)(2), which prohibits contacting a debtor who is represented by an attorney. The court found that the evidence did not reasonably support an inference that the defendant had actual knowledge of plaintiff’s representation on the third account from June through August 2021. Therefore, the defendant was reasonable in its efforts to collect on the third account and entitled to summary judgment on those grounds. The additional FDCPA claims for harassment and unfair practices were also dismissed, as they were premised on the alleged violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692c(a)(2).
As for the TCPA claim alleging that the debt collector used an ATDS to contact her without her consent, the debt collector denied that it used an ATDS and asserted that the plaintiff gave express consent for such calls pursuant to her agreement to seek medical care. The court noted that the Ninth Circuit relies on the Federal Communication Commission’s (FCC) 1992 interpretation of express consent. The court then referenced a Sixth Circuit case finding “that consumers may give ‘prior express consent’ under the FCC’s interpretation of the TCPA when they provide a cell phone number to one entity as part of a commercial transaction, which then provides the number to another related entity from which the consumer incurs a debt that is part and parcel of the reason they gave the number in the first place.” Based on this reasoning, the court found that the plaintiff had provided her phone number on her medical admission form, which constituted express consent to receive calls related to that transaction, and the hospital had provided that number to the defendant for debt collection. Therefore, the defendant’s actions were compliant with the FCC’s interpretation of the TCPA, and summary judgment was granted in favor of the defendant on this claim as well.
