I'm sending this letter to dispute a bill. Is it good?

[choviohoya]

<current date>
<my name>
<my address>
Account Number was refused to be provided

<name of company billing me>
Billing Inquiries
<their address>



Dear Sir or Madam:

I am writing to dispute a billing error in the amount of (amount was refused to be provided) on my account. The amount is inaccurate because I specifically dissented to service and never consented to service. I never requested service from <company name>. It was clear that I did not need service. I stated to the paramedics employed by <company name> that an error had been made, that my civil rights were being violated, and that what they were doing was illegal. I also told the paramedics that I couldn't pay, and they replied "Don't worry, I'm sure The State will pay for it." I asked again, "Who is going to pay for this?" and they replied, "The State." There is no such law that allows a company to bill someone for services rendered without that person's consent. Therefor, unless otherwise speficied by law, the bill is illegal in nature, according to the Fair Credit Billing Act, section § 161 (b) (3), which states "For the purpose of this section, a ‘billing error’ consists of any of the following: ... A reflection on a statement of goods or services not accepted by the obligor or his designee or not delivered to the obligor or his designee in accordance with the agreement made at the time of a transaction."

The Fair Credit Billing Act also clearly states that creditors (in this case, your company) is not allowed to close the account or send the account to any third party (in this case, a collection agency) if the bill is being disputed by the obligor (me). I have sent you two letters in the past although not certified mail and not return receipt requested, and your billing department and business manager have been well aware that I have disputed the bill - I have, in a timely and polite manner, notified your company by telephone, by letter, and/or in person that I dispute the bill every time I was contacted by your company. Therefor, according to the public law, the Fair Credit Billing Act, you were disallowed, by law, to close the account, and report me to a third party (specifically, The <collection agency> Group - a collection agency).

"...a creditor operatng an open end consumer credit plan may not, prior to the sending of the written explanation or clarification required under paragraph (B) (ii), restrict or close an account with respect to which the obligor has indicated pursuant to subsection (a) that he believes such account to contain a billing error solely because of the obligor's failure to pay the amount indicated to be in error."

According to the Fair Credit Billing Act "Facts for Consumers" website, found at http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/consumer/credit/cre16.shtm , it also says that you (the creditor) may not begin the collection process until after you have investigated this matter and notified me (the obligor) in writing, how much I owe and why. The website also states that you must provide relevant documentation upon request. I have requested the documentation of laws that give you the right to bill people under such circumstances, and people in your billing department stated that it's not your company's responsibility, refused, gave irrelevant laws about insurance fraud on the part of insurance companies, stated that you do not have a legal department, stated that your legal representation is "somewhere in New York," and said that The <collection agency> Group (the collection agency your company has sent my bill to) is your legal representation. You are legally required not to lie to obligors by the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act, however your company did in the above-mentioned case.

I have also requested a copy of my bill on five occasions (with ample time in between), in which cases the people representing your company refused or otherwise declined to give me a copy of my bill. They have also refused to tell me the amount that I owe, or provide me with my account number. Note that none of the statements made in this letter are inclusive of events that have occurred with The <collection agency> Group (I have also requested copies of my bill from them and other events have happened with them, but those events are not described or included in this letter).

[macquaid35]

Did you ever say "I do not consent to this treatment"?

If so, then you have a case. However, if you were unconcious or something at the time and unable to give consent, then you're still liable for the bill. EMTs are required by law to treat people unless they have an explicit denial of consent or if you've been deemed to be mentally incapable of giving or refusing consent.

So, if you were concious and you explicitly stated that you did not want their service, then you're probably going to win.

But I dunno; I feel like you're not giving us the whole story. Getting a patient's consent for medical procedures is #1 for paramedics or any other medical professional. I find it hard to believe that you said "I don't want to be treated" and they just ignored you.

[roche]

Sounds good. You're being factual without being forceful. Maybe include your phone number as they will want to speak with you instead of writing you back.

[leland]

If they did indeed transport you against your will you need to talk to the District Attorney's office in your area to file charges.

You can also report the company and Paramedics the state EMS licensing board. You can usually do this on line.

You also need to get a copy of the Paramedics report and the report from the ED which you can sign a release form and obtain. They are your medical records and you should have no problem obtaining them. This way you will know why they transported you and their assessment. If the Paramedics' assessment greatly differs from the ED, you will have a good case provided it is in your favor. But, get the records from the Paramedics before they have a chance to change it since the copy left at the ED sometimes has a way of conveniently disappearing.

[syvwkh]

What he fails to mention is that he was being detained for psychiatric assessment because he expressed suicidal thoughts, which rather negates the matter of consent.