Nancy Moran

"East Collect" Receivables, Ltd.
Att'n: Ms. Lynn "East"

Dear Ms. "East":

In view of your truculence culminating in the flat statement that my file would be sent to "East Collect"'s "Legal Department" "this afternoon", the purpose of this letter is to set forth in writing and to confirm aspects of our telephone conversation of Thursday, December 5, 1991. A written recitation is, I believe, necessary given "East Collect"'s November 21st invoice lack of specificity, coupled with the nature and content of your telephone assertions. (The substantive issues have already been exhaustively presented long prior to this date but remain unaddressed.)

By directing you to forward the matter to your "Legal Department" directly rather than delay same by the 15 days you originally proposed, I was and am requesting competent review of the entire record, including the letter of July 30, 1990, and the substantive issues raised therein. I remind you that "East Collect" has been in possession of all these materials for a minimum of sixteen months; I do not think this request is unreasonable or unwarranted even at this late date.

For your reference and convenience, I enclose a photocopy of said invoice; it should not be omitted that the reverse of the form states (in toto): "We are a professional collection agency attempting to collect a debt. Any information obtained will be used for that purpose." Contrary to Ms. Henson's and your strenuous protestations over the telephone, the invoice does state, in simple declarative sentences, that the matter was about to be referred to JHU-Psychiatry for decision. It is therefore not unreasonable that I was under the assumption that such action was to occur. Please note also that the invoice makes no reference to "date of service", "attending physician", "outstanding balance" or any of the usual and customary bits of information which would identify clearly and with specificity the origin or status of a medical account.

"East Collect"'s generalized invoice ("Demand for Payment") is surprisingly vague, given the large volume of "Eastern" patients, in particular patients like myself with multiple admissions and/or multiple relationships with divers providers within the "Eastern" vast Medical System.

In view of the above, I itemize below the following so as to confirm and delineate understandings developed outside the written record:

1. "East Collect"'s telephone call late in November (initiated by a "Cindy"), its invoice ("Demand for Payment") dated November 21st, and the telephone call of December 5th initiated by a Debbie Henson but referred to and continued by a Lynn "East" (identified as the "supervisor") relate to an inpatient admission at "Eastern" Hospital during August of 1989. The calls and invoice do not relate to any admissions(s) prior to August of 1989 nor to any admission(s) subsequent thereto. It does not relate to any billing(s) generated by "Eastern" Hospital but it relates solely to payments requested by physicians of the "Eastern" University Department of Psychiatry.

2. You have expressly stated that "East Collect" is in receipt of my letter of July 30, 1990. If I may quote, you were "looking right at it". Said piece of correspondence had been received and made a part of the file pertaining to the instant "Demand" contemporaneous with its writing (about 16 months prior to this date). (A duplicate of same is enclosed to forestall any doubt.)

3. The call originated by "Cindy" and the invoice of November 21st are the first and only contacts your company has made regarding this billing, which originated in August of 1989, but was last entertained by you on or about July 30 of 1990.

4. "East Collect" has not to date either in writing or over the telephone responded to or addressed the substantive issue raised in the July 30, 1990 letter or its enclosures.

Briefly, with respect to the telephone conversation of the 5th of this month: if one were to believe certain of your (telephone) assertions, any health care provider, as well as its chosen collection agency, can enforce any claim for any service, real or imagined, without regard to accuracy or validity, even in the face of evidence or argument to the contrary. In the same vein, your charge that my letter and the substantive issues it raises are without force or effect and/or that "East Collect" may choose to disregard them at its sole discretion is not in the least persuasive much less determinative. Need I further point out that your allusion to an extensive written record of telephone conversations is particularly dubious since any and all contributions to such "records" could only have been made by person(s) with a vested personal financial interest in outcome.

Finally, as I indicated during our conversation, I would prefer not to resolve the matter using (or abusing) the courts, but I am prepared to do so pending action on "East Collect"'s part. I think we are both aware of how burdensome and even counterproductive formal litigation can be. Further, of significance here is that there is no authorization or prior agreement regarding attorney fees or the like.

For these reasons, I think it fitting to remind you (as well as the "Legal Department" to which you make reference) that a hasty filing in any court -- without thorough review and addressing of substantive issues raised -- could well result in a later court finding that "East Collect" has violated the Code of Professional Responsibility and/or other of the Maryland Rules or statutes.

If "East Collect" desires to contact me in the future, let this letter constitute a formal request that "East Collect", its agents or its staff do so in writing. Telephone inquiries and exhortations, such as attempted by "East Collect" staff heretofore, will not and can not be entertained. Finally, I emphasize, as I did by telephone on December 5th and elsewhere in this letter, "East Collect" has a duty and obligation to exercise sober judgment and maintain professional accountability in the conduct of its objectives.

Sincerely,



Nancy Moran


nm
enclosures