Hart v. Pac. Rehab of Md., P.A.

Decision Date13 September 2013
Docket NumberCivil Action No. ELH-12-2608
PartiesSHANTAVIA HART, Plaintiff, v. PACIFIC REHAB OF MARYLAND, P.A., et al., Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — District of Maryland
MEMORANDUM OPINION

This case was spawned by a debt collection lawsuit instituted in a Maryland State court against Shantavia Hart, plaintiff, to recover for medical services rendered to Hart. After the collection case was voluntarily dismissed, plaintiff initiated this putative class action against the following defendants: Pacific Rehab of Maryland, P.A. ("Pacific Rehab"); A.J. Kodeck, Chartered ("Kodeck"), the law firm that filed the State case against Hart; and Fradkin & Weber, P.A. ("F&W"), the law firm that succeeded Kodeck in handling the State case.1

The litigation is rooted in the events of November and December 2005, when Hart obtained physical therapy and other medical treatment for personal injuries she sustained as a result of the alleged negligence of a tortfeasor. Hart does not dispute that she received the treatment and admits that she never paid for it. In January 2012, about six years after the treatment was provided, "Pacific Rehab & Sports Medicine, Inc., a/t/a Pacific Rehab of MD,Inc., a/t/a St. Paul & Biddle Middle Assoc." (collectively, the "State plaintiff"), filed suit in a Maryland court to recover the money owed by Hart for the medical services she received. Plaintiff claims that Pacific Rehab and Kodeck violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"), 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq. (Count I), and that all three defendants violated the Maryland Consumer Debt Collection Act ("MDCPA"), Md. Code (2005 Repl. Vol., 2012 Supp.), § 14-201 et seq. of the Commercial Law Article ("C.L.") (Count II), as well as the Maryland Consumer Protection Act, C.L. § 13-101 et seq. (Count III).

Each defendant has filed a motion to dismiss, see ECF 19 ("Kodeck Motion"); ECF 20 ("F&W Motion"); ECF 21 ("Pacific Rehab Motion"), supported by a memorandum of law. See ECF 19-1 ("Kodeck Memo"); ECF 20-1 ("F&W Memo"); ECF 21-1 ("Pacific Rehab Memo"). Plaintiff filed a consolidated opposition, see ECF 22 ("Opposition," or "Opp."), and defendants replied. See ECF 23 ("Pacific Rehab Reply"); ECF 24 ("F&W Reply"); ECF 25 ("Kodeck Reply").2 No hearing is necessary to resolve the motions. See Local Rule 105.6.

For the reasons that follow, I will grant defendants' motions as to plaintiff's federal claims (Count I), with prejudice. As to plaintiff's claims under Maryland law (Counts II and III), I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Therefore, I will dismiss the State claims, without prejudice to plaintiff's right to pursue them.

Factual Background3

In 2005, Hart was represented by counsel in regard to a personal injury matter. Compl. ¶ 19. Hart's lawyer "referred" her to a physical therapy provider located at 1120 St. Paul St., Baltimore, Maryland, for treatment of an unidentified injury. Id. ¶¶ 19-20. The attorney represented to Hart that her medical bills for physical therapy "would be paid out of the recovery from her personal injury lawsuit." Id. ¶ 20. The attorney also advised her that, "if there was no recovery in her favor, she would not be required to pay anything." Id.

From November 16, 2005 to December 19, 2005, plaintiff underwent approximately one month of physical therapy and related medical treatment at 1120 St. Paul Street in Baltimore, at a cost of $3,359. Id. ¶¶ 19, 26. Unfortunately for Hart, she did not prevail in her personal injury lawsuit. And, she admits that she never paid the fees she incurred for her medical treatment. Id. ¶ 20.

On January 5, 2011, suit was filed against Hart in the District Court for Baltimore City. Id. ¶ 23.4 A copy of the State complaint, along with its exhibits (collectively, the "Pacific Rehab Complaint"), is attached to the Pacific Rehab Motion. See Pacific Rehab Motion Exh. 6 (ECF21-7).5 As noted, the case caption identified the plaintiff as "Pacific Rehab & Sports Medicine, Inc. a/t/a [also trading as] Pacific Rehab of MD, Inc. a/t/a St. Paul & Biddle Medical Assoc." According to Hart, "Pacific Rehab of Maryland, P.A. caused a complaint to be filed ... on behalf of an entity identified as 'Pacific Rehab & Sports Medicine, Inc.'" Compl. ¶ 23. Further, Hart alleges that the suit was "drafted and filed" by Kodeck. Compl. ¶ 24.

The Pacific Rehab Complaint alleged, inter alia, that "through its subsidiaries" Hart received "physical therapy services" at her "request, Pacific Rehab Compl. at 7 ¶ 1; "demand for payment of said services was made," id. at 7 ¶ 2; and Hart "breached the . . . agreement by failing to pay for the services rendered." Id. at 7 ¶ 3. Further, the State plaintiff claimed that "although demand for payment ha[d] been made . . . , [Hart] continues to refuse to pay the amount due and owing . . . to Pacific Rehab of Maryland." Id. at 7 ¶ 4.

Two account statements attached to the Pacific Rehab Complaint indicate that the medical treatment cost $3,359. Compl. ¶ 26; see Pacific Rehab Compl. at 11-13. However, Pacific Rehab alleged in the suit that Hart owed principal in the amount of $6,999. Compl. ¶ 26; see Pacific Rehab Compl. at 7. The suit also requested prejudgment interest "from the last date of treatment, December 19, 2005," Compl. ¶ 25, at a rate of six percent per annum, in the amount of $419.94.6 See Pacific Rehab Compl. at 10. In the prayer for relief, the State plaintiff sought to recover $6999.00 for services rendered, attorney's fees in the sum of $1,049.85, and "PostJudgment Interest" in the amount of $2,099.70.7 Compl. ¶ 26; see Pacific Rehab Compl. at 7-8. Although the "Wherefore" clause included a request for "Pre-judgment interest" and court costs, no specific sums were requested. Thus, the State plaintiff sought damages totaling $10,148.55, inclusive of interest and attorney's fees.

In support of the request for counsel fees, the State plaintiff attached to the Complaint an "Affidavit in Support of Prayer for Reasonable Attorney's Fees," signed by Ari Kodeck, Esquire, as counsel for plaintiff. He requested attorney's fees of fifteen percent "of the amount of the judgment to be entered...." In the affidavit, Mr. Kodeck noted that Hart "promise[d] to pay reasonable attorney's fees, or attorney's fees up to fifteen percent (15%)," and he opined that reasonable attorney's fees would be 15% "of the amount of the judgment to be entered...." ECF 21-7 at 9.

The Pacific Rehab Complaint also included a "Notice" in bold letters that stated: "THIS COMMUNICATION IS FROM A DEBT COLLECTOR, AND IS AN EFFORT TO COLLECT A DEBT. ANY INFORMATION OBTAINED WILL BE USED FOR THAT PURPOSE." Pacific Rehab Compl. at 5 (emphasis in original).8

As observed, the State plaintiff appended to the suit two account statements, each reflecting medical services rendered to Hart in November and December 2005, often several times per week. See Pacific Rehab Compl. at 11-13. One statement itemized a list of medical services provided under the name "Pacific Rehab of Maryland Inc.," which included, inter alia,"gait training"; "ultrasound"; "joint mobilization"; "therapeutic massage"; "pt education"; and "therapeutic activities." See id. at 11-12. The other statement, in the name of "St. Paul & Biddle Medical Assoc.," itemized services such as x-rays of plaintiff's spine and ribs. See id. at 13. Both statements identified 1120 St. Paul St. in Baltimore as the address for the medical provider. See id. at 11, 13.

In addition, the State plaintiff attached to the suit copies of two agreements signed by Hart at the outset of her medical treatment. See Compl. ¶¶ 27-28; Pacific Rehab Compl. at 14-15. One is titled "Assignment of Benefits" ("Assignment, ECF 21-7 at 15), signed by Hart on November 14, 2005. The other is titled "Agreement and Authorization for Payment" ("Agreement," ECF 21-7 at 14), signed by Hart on November 19, 2005,

As to the Assignment, it contains a header of "St. Paul and Biddle Medical Associates," and authorized Hart's insurance company to pay the healthcare provider directly. In particular, the text "provided for payment to 'St. Paul & Biddle Medical Associates, P.A.'" Compl. ¶ 21 (emphasis added). The Assignment states, in relevant part:

I hereby authorize and direct my attorney to pay to St. Paul & Biddle Medical Associates, P.A. such sums as may be due and owing to them for professional services rendered in the treatment of injuries sustained by me . . . .
I hereby authorize my insurance carrier to pay directly to St. Paul & Biddle Medical Associates, P.A., such sums as may be due [and] owing to them. . . .
I fully understand that I am responsible for any balance due as a result of any payment made by my insurance carrier . . . which is less than the amount billed by St. Paul & Biddle Medical Associates, P.A., and I waive any defense for non-payment.
I waive any statute of limitations for collection of monies for services rendered and agree to pay legal interest and attorney fees accrued in pursuit of collection of monies for services rendered.

The Agreement has a header of "Pacific Rehabilitation of Maryland," and provided for payment directly to the healthcare provider, "Pacific Rehabilitation of Maryland." Compl. ¶ 27. The Agreement states, in relevant part:

I hereby authorize and direct my attorney to pay to Pacific Rehabilitation of Maryland such sums as may be due and owing to them for professional services rendered in the treatment of injuries sustained by me . . . .
I hereby authorize my insurance carrier to pay directly to Pacific Rehabilitation of Maryland such sums as may be due [and] owing to them. . . .
I fully understand that I am responsible for any balance due as a result of any payment made by my insurance carrier . . . which is less than the amount billed by Pacific Rehabilitation of Maryland and I waive any defense for non-payment.
I waive any statute of limitations for collection of monies for services rendered and
...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT