Pearson v. Apria Healthcare Grp.

CHRISTINA PEARSON, Plaintiff, v. APRIA HEALTHCARE GROUP, INC. and ARSTRAT, LLC, Defendants.

Case No.: 3:19-cv-02400-WQH-JLB

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

May 10, 2021

ORDER

HAYES, Judge:

The matters pending before the Court are the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendant Apria Healthcare Group, Inc. (ECF No. 44); the Motion to Seal filed by Defendant Apria Healthcare Group, Inc. (ECF No. 45); the Motions to Seal filed by Plaintiff Christina Pearson (ECF Nos. 52, 55); and the Motions for Summary Judgment filed by Plaintiff Christina Pearson (ECF Nos. 71, 72).

I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On December 13, 2019, Plaintiff Christina Pearson initiated this action by filing a Complaint against Defendants Apria Healthcare Group, Inc. ("Apria") and ARSTRAT, LLC ("ARS"). (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff alleges that "[t]his is a case about a healthcare provider and its debt collection agency [that] deliberately dunned a military spouse instead of her military insurance carrier for her child's nebulizer." Id. at 2. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants "continued to dun her even after they knew that [ ] she and her child had insurance which covered the machine, and even after they acknowledged - to her - that they knew she didn't owe the debt." Id. Plaintiff brings the following five causes of action: (1) violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") (15 U.S.C. § 1692c) against Defendant ARS; (2) violation of the FDCPA (15 U.S.C. § 1692e) against Defendant ARS; (3) violation of the FDCPA (15 U.S.C. § 1692f) against Defendant ARS; (4) violation of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("RFDCPA") (California Civil Code § 1812.700) against Defendant ARS; and (5) violation of the RFDCPA (California Civil Code § 1788.17) against Defendants ARS and Apria. See id. at 11-14. Plaintiff seeks actual and statutory damages, costs and attorneys' fees, and "such other and further relief as may be just and proper." Id. at 14-15.

On December 8, 2020, Defendant Apria filed a Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 44) and a Motion to Seal (ECF No. 45). On January 4, 2021, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Seal (ECF No. 52) and a Response in opposition to Defendant Apria's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 54)¹. On January 5, 2021, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Seal. (ECF No. 55). On January 25, 2021, Defendant Apria filed a Reply to its Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 66). On January 28, 2021, Plaintiff filed a Corrected Response in opposition to Defendant Apria's Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts and a Corrected Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts. (ECF No. 70).

On February 11, 2021, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Summary Judgment against Defendant Apria (ECF No. 71) and a Motion for Summary Judgment against DefendantARS (ECF No. 72). On February 25, 2021, Defendant Apria filed a Response in opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 74) and a Response in opposition to Plaintiff's Corrected Response in opposition to Defendant Apria's Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts and Corrected Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts (ECF No. 75). On the same day, Defendant ARS filed a Response in opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 76) and a Response in opposition to Plaintiff's Corrected Response in opposition to Defendant Apria's Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts and Corrected Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts (ECF No. 77). On March 4, 2021, Plaintiff filed a Reply to her Motion for Summary Judgment against Defendant Apria (ECF No. 79) and a Reply to her Motion for Summary Judgment against Defendant ARS (ECF No. 80). On March 11, 2021, the Court heard oral argument on the Motions for Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 82).

II. FACTS²

On October 14, 2017, Plaintiff received a nebulizer from Defendant Apria on behalf of her minor daughter. See Pl.'s Resp. to Def. Apria's Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts ("SSUMF") ¶ 1, ECF No. 70 at 2. Defendant Apria "generated a Sales, Service, and Rental Agreement ('SSRA') for the nebulizer it provided to Plaintiff for her daughter." Id. ¶ 2, ECF No. 70 at 2. The SSRA includes a financial responsibility term, which states, in relevant part, "the patient's Third Party Payor may refuse to authorize or pay for further treatment . . . , with the result that the Responsible Party will . . . become financially responsible for ongoing rental or purchase charges and the cost of related Equipment . . . ." Id. ¶ 4, ECF No. 70 at 6 (emphasis omitted); Ex. 1 to Patton Decl., ECF No. 46-3 at 8. The SSRA further states, in relevant part, "[i]f the Company determines that any Equipment for which payment has not been properly arranged cannot be returned to the Company without unreasonably endangering the patient, the Company may . . . transferownership of such Equipment to the patient and charge the Responsible Party the remaining Third Party Payor contract balance to purchase the same . . . ." Pl.'s Resp. to Def. Apria's Separate Statement of Additional Undisputed Material Facts ("SSAUMF") ¶ 99, ECF No. 79-1 at 3; Ex. 1 to Patton Decl., ECF No. 46-3 at 12.

One of Defendant Apria's Billing Center Quality Specialists states in a sworn declaration that

[Defendant] Apria's standard business practice is to provide a copy of the SSRA upon delivery of its equipment to the customer's home. If the customer is not home at the time of the delivery or is otherwise not available to sign the SSRA, it is [Defendant] Apria's standard business practice for the technician completing delivery to "porch" the SSRA, meaning that the SSRA is left with the equipment at the delivery location, without requiring a signature.

Patton Decl. ¶ 5, ECF No. 44-5 at 3-4.

"The nebulizer was rented to Plaintiff on monthly basis from [Defendant] Apria, for which [Plaintiff's insurance provider] Tricare made payments of $3.34/month" "from October 2017 to June 2018." Def. Apria's Resp. to Pl.'s Separate Statement and Supplemental Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts ("SS & SSSUMF") ¶ 26, ECF No. 75 at 24; Pl.'s Resp. to Def. Apria's SSAUMF ¶ 100, ECF No. 79-1 at 3. In December of 2018, Defendant Apria converted the nebulizer rental arrangement into a purchase arrangement even though Plaintiff did not request to purchase the nebulizer. See Def. Apria's Resp. to Pl.'s SS & SSSUMF ¶¶ 54-55, ECF No. 75 at 32-33.

In January of 2019, Plaintiff received a bill from Defendant Apria for $117.59, "stating that this account was 'seriously past due' and a payment was expected 'immediately.[']" Id. ¶ 57, ECF No. 75 at 33; see also Pl.'s Resp. to Def. Apria's SSUMF ¶ 11, ECF No. 70 at 9; Pl.'s Resp. to Def. Apria's SSAUMF ¶ 101, ECF No. 79-1 at 4. The bill stated that Defendant "Apria is currently missing or has invalid information on file that is required by your insurance plan. Please contact your plan for resolution." Pl.'s Resp. to Def. Apria's SSUMF ¶ 11, ECF No. 70 at 9; Pl.'s Resp. to Def. Apria's SSAUMF ¶ 101,ECF No. 79-1 at 4; see also Def. Apria's Resp. to Pl.'s SS & SSSUMF ¶ 58, ECF No. 75 at 33-34. Plaintiff and Defendant Apria disagreed as to who was responsible for the payment. See Def. Apria's Resp. to Pl.'s SS & SSSUMF ¶¶ 60, 63-65 ECF No. 75 at 34-36.

On February 11, 2019, Plaintiff called Defendant Apria and spoke to one of Defendant Apria's representatives. See Pl.'s Resp. to Def. Apria's SSUMF ¶ 12, ECF No. 70 at 9. Defendant Apria's representative provided Plaintiff the representative's contact information and cautioned Plaintiff that if Plaintiff continued to receive bills from Defendant Apria, she should call her back. See id. ¶ 13, ECF No. 70 at 10. From February to September 2019, Defendant Apria continued to send Plaintiff bills each month. See id. ¶ 15, ECF No. 70 at 11; see also Def. Apria's Resp. to Pl.'s SS & SSSUMF ¶ 75, ECF No. 75 at 40. "Between February and September 2019, Plaintiff did not pay or respond to any bills from [Defendant] Apria", "threw the bills away", "did not contact Tricare to discuss whether it was not paying for the nebulizer", and did not contact the Defendant Apria representative that she spoke with on February 11, 2019. Pl.'s Resp. to Def. Apria's SSUMF ¶¶ 16-17, ECF No. 70 at 11-12.

On September 9, 2019, Defendant Apria employed Defendant ARS to collect on Plaintiff's debt. See Def. ARS's Resp. to Pl.'s Separate Statement and Supplemental Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts ("SS & SSSUMF") ¶ 76, ECF No. 77 at 16. The principal business purpose of Defendant ARS is to collect on debts owed to other companies. See id. ¶ 91, ECF No. 77 at 19. Defendant ARS identifies debts as being owed to Defendant Apria when it calls patients. See Def. Apria's Resp. to Pl.'s SS & SSSUMF ¶ 83, ECF No. 75 at 42. At the inception of its collection efforts, Defendant ARS received a datafile from Defendant Apria containing Plaintiff's phone number and San Diego, California address. See Def. ARS's Resp. to Pl.'s SS & SSSUMF ¶ 93, ECF No. 77 at 19. Defendant ARS used the phone number (920) 283-1508 to call Plaintiff. See id. ¶ 77, ECF No. 77 at 16. Defendant ARS called Plaintiff in attempt to collect on a debt. Id. ¶ 96, ECF No. 77 at 20. The "collection activity on the debt" by Defendant ARS "occurred over theperiod of one week, September 12 to 19, 2019." Pl.'s Resp. to Def. ARS's Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts ("SSUMF") ¶ 105, ECF No. 80-1 at 3. Plaintiff states that, in September of 2019, she received at least three calls from Defendant ARS on behalf of Defendant Apria in which a 920 area code phone number appeared on her phone and that she did not answer any of the calls because she suspected the caller to be a telemarketer. See Pl. Decl. ¶ 46, ECF No. 54-2 at 6; Ex. Q to Felipe Decl., ECF No. 76-4 at 6; Pl.'s Resp. to Def. ARS's SSUMF ¶¶ 98-99, ECF No. 80-1 at 2. The account notes produced by Defendant ARS state that it called Plaintiff...