In early January, President Trump signed the Telephone Robocall Abuse Criminal Enforcement and Deterrence (“TRACED”) Act into law, supporting bipartisan legislative efforts to curb robocalls. The Act gives the Federal Communications Commission greater enforcement authority against illegal robocallers. Specifically, under the new law, the FCC can now extend the statute of limitations by
With the ever-changing case law surrounding the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, staying up to date with what cases are relevant and where courts stand on certain, very important definitions, can be an almost impossible task. Further, in the 28 years since the TCPA was enacted, the legislation has been considered outdated by many companies.
As
The United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania recently held that a pro se plaintiff failed to plead facts sufficient to demonstrate that an agency relationship existed. This holding reinforced the need for specificity in Telephone Consumer Protection Act claims that allege vicarious liability.
In Robert D. Kline v. Elite Medical Laboratories
In a win for out-of-network health care providers, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana recently remanded a case to state court, holding that there was no federal question jurisdiction and that the plaintiff’s claims were not preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. §
Here’s the problem: In the managed care litigation space, noncontracted medical providers are suing payors as part of their business-collections strategy, utilizing quasi-contract theories of recovery in their attempt to justify ever growing bills.
In the traditional contracted-provider/ payor relationship, the network agreement, of course, governs rates of reimbursement. Medical providers are turning to quasi-contract
In a non-precedential ruling, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit upheld a district court decision to grant summary judgment in favor of a defendant that was sued for violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
The plaintiffs – a condominium owner and his children – lapsed on payments owed to a condominium agency,