5 ms·

Something similar happened to one of our sons. Unfortunately he has a history of drug use that landed him in legal trouble. The local police recognize him. He h

Something similar happened to one of our sons. Unfortunately he has a history of drug use that landed him in legal trouble. The local police recognize him. He had a minor fender bender. The police tested him for alcohol there, clean. But then given history they detained him and took him to the nearest ER for a battery of drug tests -- for which the hospital billed our son, and for which our son is on the hook. It's bonkers.

freedomben 2y ago
That's despicable. What a clearly grotesque thing for a cop to be able to do, forcing people to involuntarily spend their own money to accomplish police business. If they want the tests, the least they should do is pay for them! Mind if I ask what area he lived in?
- earnestinger 2y ago
  Is this legal? Everything is done by the book?
  - ty6853 2y ago
    Yes see Ashley Cervantes v US, nearly identical case to my circumstances and same people but even worse abuse. She lost as doctors were considered acting as non medical pseudo police for the purposes of challenging the care and considered purely medical actors when challenging the police search. Catch 22 you lose. She was sent bill by same hospital. I contacted her lawyers for my own purposes, they said they'd given up these cases. https://holdcbpaccountable.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/cervantes-v-united-state_response-to-mfsj.pdf https://holdcbpaccountable.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/ce...
    - cornholio 2y ago
      > doctors were considered acting as non medical pseudo police for the purposes of challenging the care What does that mean? They are either providing the services on behalf of the police, so their pseudo employer needs to pay them, or they are medical professionals providing a care you did not consent to or requested, in which case they should charge the party that requested the services, again, the police. In both cases, you were not the contractual beneficiary of the services, so you own nothing. The fact that your blood and orifices are involved is purely incidental, any evidence resulting from this unnecessary medical act can only be used against you, so you would have no reason to want it.
    - mindslight 2y ago
      What are the actual legal theories by which they're trying (/succeeding) at enforcing these bills? Anybody can send anybody a bill for anything, that does not mean it is valid or legally enforceable. In general I find discussions of this topic very frustrating because everybody stops short of visiting the if and how of the fraudulent bills actually having an effect. I can certainly believe there are corrupt or dubious ways they get collected on, but those mechanisms need to be focused on and then eliminated as an obvious first step of healthcare reform.
      - throwway120385 2y ago
        Usually the hospital has you sign something during intake that says "I acknowledge that if the insurance fails to pay this bill then I am the final guarantor." And so without that signed documentation the detainee shouldn't be on the hook for the bill. So asking the hospital to present your signature on that document or escalating until someone can provide that or indicate that they don't have it should be enough. This is a situation where personal legal insurance might be beneficial because for about $30 a month you get a law office you can call and ask questions, for example about the legality of the local hospital's billing practices for detainees.
        ty6853 2y ago
        Yes I refused to sign anything so they just send it to a carousel of debt collectors who give up with resistance but then resell it to someone else whom hasn't received a cease and desist yet, then I must start over fighting it. This happens roughly annually for several years now.
        fc417fc802 2y ago
        > resell it to someone else whom hasn't received a cease and desist yet I wonder if you could sue them for that? Reselling a debt that they know is invalid.
        mindslight 2y ago
        The thing they have you sign is a single-party "consent" and not a two-party "contract", implying it's merely informing you about what they are able to do to you, rather than asking you to assent to a purportedly mutual agreement. I cross out all that unilateral nonsense about being financially responsible (as well as other types of nonsense), and have never been balked at. Worst case is these days when they ask me to sign a contextless touchpad, and then they roll their eyes like it's some big imposition when I ask for a hard copy instead so I can "review". So I don't think that paperwork is directly involved with how the medical industry has come to run on billing fraud shakedowns. Hence asking for actual mechanics / outcomes of what happens when people are "sent a bill" and don't do the implied thing of just paying it. Also, have you ever talked to an attorney - especially asking them preemptive or against-the-status-quo questions? In my experience they generally tell you to just go with the flow. If they advise you to do anything else and it blows up, then they themselves could be on the hook.
    - nickff 2y ago
      Here's the court's decision on the case: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.azd.985537/gov.uscourts.azd.985537.158.0.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.azd.985... The result wasn't what you're describing. The plaintiff was suing in federal court, with a constitutional cause of action. The defendants argued, and the court decided that the plaintiff has a medical malpractice cause of action in state court, which is appropriate for her to pursue (at least before a federal court will rule in her favor).
  - potato3732842 2y ago
    It lives in one of those grey areas of "nobody has been murdered over it brutally enough to make national news so it persists" just like all the other abuse the police do. At least they don't suffocate people as much anymore...
- wongarsu 2y ago
  It's pretty bizarre. Surely if spending money is free speech as per Citizens United, then the right to remain silent also includes the right not to spend money on an investigation against yourself. Apart from all the other common sense reasons why this is absurd
  - 34679 2y ago
    Ah, but you not only have the right to remain silent- since a 2013 supreme Court ruling, you also have to know that you have the right to remain silent, and you have to say that you know and that you wish to remain silent. https://reason.com/2013/06/17/supreme-court-rules-fifth-amendment-has/ https://reason.com/2013/06/17/supreme-court-rules-fifth-amen... >In a 5-4 decision the Supreme Court ruled today that a potential defendant's silence can be used against him if he is being interviewed by police but is not arrested (and read his Miranda rights) and has not verbally invoked the protection of the Fifth Amendment.
- potato3732842 2y ago
  What do you think the cops do all day? Handing out civil infractions is basically the same thing but without the unnecessary extra party and steps.
FireBeyond 2y ago
One day I got a call at work from my (now previous) partner. "What's up?" "You need to come home, we need to talk." I duly do. "So I went to the doctor earlier today. Had an issue. They swabbed me and told me I have an STD. So they did a full STD and blood test, we'll see how that goes. In the meantime, who did you cheat on me with?" "Uh, nobody." Back and forth, arguing, etc. Me insisting I'll go get tested. The doctor rings back the next day. "We reviewed and looked again under the scope, and you do not have an STD, just a yeast infection." Relationship relief. A month later, get a call from the clinic: "So about this bill for $290 for a full workup and testing, can you pay that today?" No. Not a chance. You not only misread a test, but you also gave my girlfriend factually inaccurate information that you knew was going to be controversial. On the strength of that, you told her, "If it wasn't you, you really need to get fully tested if you don't know where he's been." And then you want to send me the bill for the battery of tests you ordered because you misread a culture? No.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- giantg2 2y ago
  Did they actually waive it then?
  - thaumasiotes 2y ago
    Doesn't matter. It's not like they can make you pay. I refused to pay for medical "services" I never asked for. They sent the debt to collections. Collections had no argument other than that they would really like it if I paid. My credit score was unaffected.
    - gwd 2y ago
      This is what confuses me about so many of these "horror stories" about cancelling things like gym memberships or NYT subscriptions. You can't just say to someone "you owe me X because my policy says you do". You only owe someone something if you are legally or morally obliged to do so, and there are certainly lots of cases where (it seems to me) you are neither.
OptionOfT 2y ago
I'm surprised the police doesn't have to pay for them. It's not that the tests were medically necessary.
- anon7000 2y ago
  This is why we need constitutional amendments to make the police better. I mean there’s shit like this, and then asset forfeiture (legalized theft). Shit like this should be non-partisan.
- ty6853 2y ago
  In my case they tried to bill the federal government first, they then denied the claim and put me as the guarantor instead.
  - account-5 2y ago
    I'm assuming you and the son of the other commenter are US citizens? Quite frankly the way the US operated on most things absolutely baffles me. In the UK were the same thing to happen to you the police would be paying the bill, but obviously we have the NHS so it actually pays. The NHS might be broken but I am thankful every time I hear an American health story!
    - DFHippie 2y ago
      I sometimes think the US exists as a cautionary tale. We suck so you don't have to!
      - cscurmudgeon 2y ago
        But somehow you can use us as the world’s ATM! https://www.statista.com/statistics/275597/largers-donor-countries-of-aid-worldwide/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/275597/largers-donor-cou... Imagine a fraction of that going back to citizens!
        2y ago
prawn 2y ago
I read the piece on your blog viewing your life story from various perspectives. This story about your son seems a good example of those facets for him; in this case, the hospital situation piling on top of existing challenges. What a scam. Best of luck to both of you.
justinclift 2y ago
"America! Fuck Yeah!"
Egret 2y ago
In medicine, for minor procedures such as blood tests or ECG, there is the notion of implied consent. Just holding out your arm for the blood test is implied consent. To refuse, you might say, I am of sound mind and I do not consent to this procedure. Or, you are performing this procedure without my consent and against my wishes. I'm not a lawyer,and not in the US, but this is how it generally operates for practical reasons. Written informed consent is required for more invasive or significant procedures.

freedomben 2y ago

That's despicable. What a clearly grotesque thing for a cop to be able to do, forcing people to involuntarily spend their own money to accomplish police business. If they want the tests, the least they should do is pay for them! Mind if I ask what area he lived in?

earnestinger 2y ago
Is this legal? Everything is done by the book?
- ty6853 2y ago
  Yes see Ashley Cervantes v US, nearly identical case to my circumstances and same people but even worse abuse. She lost as doctors were considered acting as non medical pseudo police for the purposes of challenging the care and considered purely medical actors when challenging the police search. Catch 22 you lose. She was sent bill by same hospital. I contacted her lawyers for my own purposes, they said they'd given up these cases. https://holdcbpaccountable.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/cervantes-v-united-state_response-to-mfsj.pdf https://holdcbpaccountable.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/ce...
  - cornholio 2y ago
    > doctors were considered acting as non medical pseudo police for the purposes of challenging the care What does that mean? They are either providing the services on behalf of the police, so their pseudo employer needs to pay them, or they are medical professionals providing a care you did not consent to or requested, in which case they should charge the party that requested the services, again, the police. In both cases, you were not the contractual beneficiary of the services, so you own nothing. The fact that your blood and orifices are involved is purely incidental, any evidence resulting from this unnecessary medical act can only be used against you, so you would have no reason to want it.
  - mindslight 2y ago
    What are the actual legal theories by which they're trying (/succeeding) at enforcing these bills? Anybody can send anybody a bill for anything, that does not mean it is valid or legally enforceable. In general I find discussions of this topic very frustrating because everybody stops short of visiting the if and how of the fraudulent bills actually having an effect. I can certainly believe there are corrupt or dubious ways they get collected on, but those mechanisms need to be focused on and then eliminated as an obvious first step of healthcare reform.
    - throwway120385 2y ago
      Usually the hospital has you sign something during intake that says "I acknowledge that if the insurance fails to pay this bill then I am the final guarantor." And so without that signed documentation the detainee shouldn't be on the hook for the bill. So asking the hospital to present your signature on that document or escalating until someone can provide that or indicate that they don't have it should be enough. This is a situation where personal legal insurance might be beneficial because for about $30 a month you get a law office you can call and ask questions, for example about the legality of the local hospital's billing practices for detainees.
      - ty6853 2y ago
        Yes I refused to sign anything so they just send it to a carousel of debt collectors who give up with resistance but then resell it to someone else whom hasn't received a cease and desist yet, then I must start over fighting it. This happens roughly annually for several years now.
        fc417fc802 2y ago
        > resell it to someone else whom hasn't received a cease and desist yet I wonder if you could sue them for that? Reselling a debt that they know is invalid.
      - mindslight 2y ago
        The thing they have you sign is a single-party "consent" and not a two-party "contract", implying it's merely informing you about what they are able to do to you, rather than asking you to assent to a purportedly mutual agreement. I cross out all that unilateral nonsense about being financially responsible (as well as other types of nonsense), and have never been balked at. Worst case is these days when they ask me to sign a contextless touchpad, and then they roll their eyes like it's some big imposition when I ask for a hard copy instead so I can "review". So I don't think that paperwork is directly involved with how the medical industry has come to run on billing fraud shakedowns. Hence asking for actual mechanics / outcomes of what happens when people are "sent a bill" and don't do the implied thing of just paying it. Also, have you ever talked to an attorney - especially asking them preemptive or against-the-status-quo questions? In my experience they generally tell you to just go with the flow. If they advise you to do anything else and it blows up, then they themselves could be on the hook.
  - nickff 2y ago
    Here's the court's decision on the case: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.azd.985537/gov.uscourts.azd.985537.158.0.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.azd.985... The result wasn't what you're describing. The plaintiff was suing in federal court, with a constitutional cause of action. The defendants argued, and the court decided that the plaintiff has a medical malpractice cause of action in state court, which is appropriate for her to pursue (at least before a federal court will rule in her favor).
- potato3732842 2y ago
  It lives in one of those grey areas of "nobody has been murdered over it brutally enough to make national news so it persists" just like all the other abuse the police do. At least they don't suffocate people as much anymore...
wongarsu 2y ago
It's pretty bizarre. Surely if spending money is free speech as per Citizens United, then the right to remain silent also includes the right not to spend money on an investigation against yourself. Apart from all the other common sense reasons why this is absurd
- 34679 2y ago
  Ah, but you not only have the right to remain silent- since a 2013 supreme Court ruling, you also have to know that you have the right to remain silent, and you have to say that you know and that you wish to remain silent. https://reason.com/2013/06/17/supreme-court-rules-fifth-amendment-has/ https://reason.com/2013/06/17/supreme-court-rules-fifth-amen... >In a 5-4 decision the Supreme Court ruled today that a potential defendant's silence can be used against him if he is being interviewed by police but is not arrested (and read his Miranda rights) and has not verbally invoked the protection of the Fifth Amendment.
potato3732842 2y ago
What do you think the cops do all day? Handing out civil infractions is basically the same thing but without the unnecessary extra party and steps.

FireBeyond 2y ago

One day I got a call at work from my (now previous) partner. "What's up?" "You need to come home, we need to talk." I duly do. "So I went to the doctor earlier today. Had an issue. They swabbed me and told me I have an STD. So they did a full STD and blood test, we'll see how that goes. In the meantime, who did you cheat on me with?" "Uh, nobody." Back and forth, arguing, etc. Me insisting I'll go get tested. The doctor rings back the next day. "We reviewed and looked again under the scope, and you do not have an STD, just a yeast infection." Relationship relief. A month later, get a call from the clinic: "So about this bill for $290 for a full workup and testing, can you pay that today?" No. Not a chance. You not only misread a test, but you also gave my girlfriend factually inaccurate information that you knew was going to be controversial. On the strength of that, you told her, "If it wasn't you, you really need to get fully tested if you don't know where he's been." And then you want to send me the bill for the battery of tests you ordered because you misread a culture? No.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
giantg2 2y ago
Did they actually waive it then?
- thaumasiotes 2y ago
  Doesn't matter. It's not like they can make you pay. I refused to pay for medical "services" I never asked for. They sent the debt to collections. Collections had no argument other than that they would really like it if I paid. My credit score was unaffected.
  - gwd 2y ago
    This is what confuses me about so many of these "horror stories" about cancelling things like gym memberships or NYT subscriptions. You can't just say to someone "you owe me X because my policy says you do". You only owe someone something if you are legally or morally obliged to do so, and there are certainly lots of cases where (it seems to me) you are neither.

OptionOfT 2y ago

I'm surprised the police doesn't have to pay for them. It's not that the tests were medically necessary.

anon7000 2y ago
This is why we need constitutional amendments to make the police better. I mean there’s shit like this, and then asset forfeiture (legalized theft). Shit like this should be non-partisan.
ty6853 2y ago
In my case they tried to bill the federal government first, they then denied the claim and put me as the guarantor instead.
- account-5 2y ago
  I'm assuming you and the son of the other commenter are US citizens? Quite frankly the way the US operated on most things absolutely baffles me. In the UK were the same thing to happen to you the police would be paying the bill, but obviously we have the NHS so it actually pays. The NHS might be broken but I am thankful every time I hear an American health story!
  - DFHippie 2y ago
    I sometimes think the US exists as a cautionary tale. We suck so you don't have to!
    - cscurmudgeon 2y ago
      But somehow you can use us as the world’s ATM! https://www.statista.com/statistics/275597/largers-donor-countries-of-aid-worldwide/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/275597/largers-donor-cou... Imagine a fraction of that going back to citizens!
      - 2y ago

prawn 2y ago

I read the piece on your blog viewing your life story from various perspectives. This story about your son seems a good example of those facets for him; in this case, the hospital situation piling on top of existing challenges. What a scam. Best of luck to both of you.

justinclift 2y ago

"America! Fuck Yeah!"

Egret 2y ago

In medicine, for minor procedures such as blood tests or ECG, there is the notion of implied consent. Just holding out your arm for the blood test is implied consent. To refuse, you might say, I am of sound mind and I do not consent to this procedure. Or, you are performing this procedure without my consent and against my wishes. I'm not a lawyer,and not in the US, but this is how it generally operates for practical reasons. Written informed consent is required for more invasive or significant procedures.