Required by whom? What does "the healthcare creditor" mean?
Ok...hold on...here's the cast of characters so far:
1. You
2. The healthcare provider (aka the physician)
3. The healthcare creditor
4. The health care credit provider
I'm not sure if 3 and 4 are supposed to be the same person/entity, but either way, it's not clear what you mean by those things.
Determined by whom? Who conducted this investigation?
I haven't the slightest idea for the reasons explained above and because I have never read any agreements between you and any of the other players involved.
Recourse for what? If someone wants money from you, you either pay it or you don't.
The doctor needs to get paid, and you are ultimately responsible for paying. You shouldn't be liable for anything beyond the cost of your medical care.
I will try to make it clearer. There are 3 entities. The physician, me and the creditor. When the physician agrees to accept payment from this creditor it is akin to becoming a provider on their network. They create an account with the creditor and have an agreement with stipulations. He benefits from doing that because he can now get more patients, who look at the large provider list that the creditor works with and finds him as an available doctor who will accept their line of credit (can only be used for healthcare related services)
This is basically to make sure the physician plays according to the rules and as has happened in my case, the creditor can 'step in'. This is an added benefit for me in using this creditor.
What happened was there was a dispute between the doctor and myself. How it played out was that the doctor was paid in full by the creditor. However the creditor continued to investigate the claim, even though I was no longer a party to the action. The creditor is now claiming that the doctor misrepresented the services he provided and has now brought legal action against him for violating the agreement /contract he signed when he agreed to become "part of the network" and accept payment from this creditor.
So what I am asking here is that the doctor has now made the broad legal stretch/leap of "lumping" the penalties that the creditor is bringing against him into a "reversed charge" and is very broadly and in my opinion, illegally calling that a "reversed charge" from me. I am no longer involved. He got paid and withdrew the money from the account that he had with them and ran. Now basically due to his violation of the contract he has an account in bad standing with them (that he will just no longer use/accept etc) and they are going after him because t hey are now determining that he violated the agreement with "them" by misrepresenting the services he supposedly provided to me which was a violation of the contract /agreement that he had with *them* (the creditor) The fees and penalties that the doctor can accrue are many and they are just basic rules that they have to follow and they agreed to follow when they entered into the contract with the creditor (basically keeps the provider in line and is an added benefit for the patient in using this creditor) Basically they paid him and now whereas I would be banging my head against the wall going after him, they now go after him instead on their own behalf and I can rest easy. Again, this is a benefit for patients in using this creditor when or if something like this happens (in their determination)
So again, the doctor was paid, now the creditor is bringing action against the doctor (which is between them and him) and I am no longer involved. However the doctor is trying to bring me back into it and call whatever is going on between the creditor and him a "reversed charge'.
He was paid ($10,000+), he withdrew the money from the account that was created and he's now gone. Now they are making a claim against him because they have determined that he made misrepresentations in the services that were (supposedly) provided. This claim of course at this point is just an outstanding bill that they sent to him.
What would be the legal terminology for keeping me out of that since I am no longer a party to the action? At this point he is just making the claim that I didn't pay him like it was a charge back. But that isn't what happened. He isn't showing any documentation he's just saying he wasn't (his office manager is saying "the charges were reversed"). What it actually is is that he has an outstanding bill from the creditor for violating his agreement with them (and he is falsely calling that a charge back from me). They are saying that he broke the contract with them when he misrepresented the services that he stated he provided and as according to the contract he has with them, he has now accrued provider fees/charges in the amount of "X." He's saying X is actually a charge back from me.
Hope its clear, I didn't think it was that complicated but only 1 out of 3 respondents seem to understand what I am saying. It seems like this is a new type of business transaction with this type of health care credit provider so its understandable.
