Can i be sued for non-payment of medical bills while i am currently making $200 faithfully every month?

[Hewald2161]

Michigan
I am currently paying $200 a month for hospital bill's stemming from multiple surgeries due to a botched surgery performed thru their emergency room. I have paid this payment faithfully on time every month since this happened. They are now trying to sue me for non-payment while I am making payments and have the proof that I am, and have been....

 

[adjusterjack]

They are now trying to sue me

There is no "trying to sue" there is only sue or not sue. Have you been served with a summons and complaint? If not then you aren't being sued, yet.

But you certainly can be. You are in default of the debt no matter how much you are paying per month unless you have a written payment agreement with the creditor.

Is this the hospital that's threatening you or a collection agency? If it's the hospital then you need to deal directly with the billing department ASAP on getting a written payment agreement. There may be a special department at the hospital that helps people who have financial difficulties.

If it's a collection agency you'll have to get the payment agreement from them and pay them instead of the hospital.

 

[Taxing Matters]

Michigan
I am currently paying $200 a month for hospital bill's stemming from multiple surgeries due to a botched surgery performed thru their emergency room. I have paid this payment faithfully on time every month since this happened. They are now trying to sue me for non-payment while I am making payments and have the proof that I am, and have been....

So you've been paying $200/month. Do you actually have an agreement with the hospital to pay $200/month and if so, is that agreement in writing? I've seen some folks out there who are under the mistaken idea that a creditor cannot sue you for the debt as long as you pay at least something every month. That is clearly not the law. If you haven't paid as the contract says you must pay (and for most hospitals payment is due in a lump sum at time of service or not long after) then the creditor can sue for what is owed. So if you owed $10,000, for example, and that was due on February 1, 2019, then your failure to pay the full $10,00 by that date would be a breach of contract by you and the creditor may sue for that. Paying $200/month on that obligation would not prevent that from happening unless you had an enforceable modification to that contract where the hospital agrees to take the $200/month. That's why it matters whether you have an agreement with the hospital to for these payments. If you don't have that kind of agreement then as adjusterjack says you need to contact the hospital and ask about a payment agreement.

 

[quincy]

Michigan
I am currently paying $200 a month for hospital bill's stemming from multiple surgeries due to a botched surgery performed thru their emergency room. I have paid this payment faithfully on time every month since this happened. They are now trying to sue me for non-payment while I am making payments and have the proof that I am, and have been....

I agree with the others about the bill payment arrangement needing to be in writing but I have a question about the reason for these medical debts.

You said you had multiple surgeries as a result of a "botched surgery." What was botched, when, and why?

 

[Taxing Matters]

You said you had multiple surgeries as a result of a "botched surgery." What was botched, when, and why?

In a similar line of thought, it is worth also pursuing whether this is actually a bill from the hospital itself or from the physicians and other specialists who may have participated in the operations. A lot of patients are not aware that the doctors that treat them at a hospital are usually not employees of the hospital. They are independent contractors. So if the doctor commits malpractice while doing surgery, the hospital itself is not typically liable for that. That's all covered in the paperwork the hospital has the patient sign at admission, but I realize that most patient really don't read that stuff and even if they do they may not really understand the significance of it.

Malpractice by the doctor doing the botched surgery would be a good reason to refuse to pay that doctor's medical bill, but the bill of the hospital and other independent specialists would still be owed. So it may matter who botched the surgery and what services this bill (or set of bills) are for.

 

[quincy]

If Hewald could tell us the type of emergency surgery he had, and when this first ("botched") surgery was done, and under what conditions the emergency surgery was performed, we can better tell if Hewald should be seeking out a consultation with a medical malpractice attorney rather than trying to figure out a way to pay for hospital services.

 

[Taxing Matters]

If Hewald could tell us the type of emergency surgery he had, and when this first ("botched") surgery was done, and under what conditions the emergency surgery was performed, we can better tell if Hewald should be seeking out a consultation with a medical malpractice attorney rather than trying to figure out a way to pay for hospital services.

Well, I don't think it's matter of either/or. Even if there is a malpractice claim (and I agree it's a good inquiry) that won't be resolved any time soon, and in the meantime the bills the OP has still have to be addressed.

 

[quincy]

Well, I don't think it's matter of either/or. Even if there is a malpractice claim (and I agree it's a good inquiry) that won't be resolved any time soon, and in the meantime the bills the OP has still have to be addressed.

Maybe. Maybe not. It depends on the bills and the reasons for them.

 

[justalayman]

One exception to your agreement needing to be in writing. Depending on how long youve been making these payments and what if any actions the creditor has taken involving the debt, it can be an arguable point the creditor has agreed to a repayment plan by their actions.

 

[FlyingRon]

I'm sorry, but accepting partial payments do not rise to the level of acquiescence. There are limited times when the above can happen, but this is not one of them. Michigan is not one of the states where this likely happens. Partial payment agreements have to be in writing.

 

[justalayman]

I'm sorry, but accepting partial payments do not rise to the level of acquiescence. There are limited times when the above can happen, but this is not one of them. Michigan is not one of the states where this likely happens. Partial payment agreements have to be in writing.

It depends on the totality of the circumstances. It can if the creditor accepted payments for something more than a token period of time and made no efforts to collect on the full amount requiring it be paid in full. It can and has been accepted by courts to be a de facto agreement.

Even the statutes of frauds allow exceptions in some circumstances if the acts involved support the claim.

 

[quincy]

It depends on the totality of the circumstances. It can if the creditor accepted payments for something more than a token period of time and made no efforts to collect on the full amount requiring it be paid in full. It can and has been accepted by courts to be a de facto agreement.

Even the statutes of frauds allow exceptions in some circumstances if the acts involved support the claim.

I am not aware of any debt collection case in Michigan where an unwritten and unsigned payment agreement between debtor and creditor prevented a debt collector from later suing for the full amount owing. A payment agreement can be enforceable but it needs to be in writing.

 

[justalayman]

I am not aware of any debt collection case in Michigan where an unwritten and unsigned payment agreement between debtor and creditor prevented a debt collector from later suing for the full amount owing. A payment agreement can be enforceable but it needs to be in writing.

Support for that please

 

[quincy]

Support for that please

You first. You said, "It can and has been accepted by courts to be a de facto agreement."

I looked and can find nothing that supports what you said.

 

[justalayman]

You first. You said, "It can and has been accepted by courts to be a de facto agreement."

I looked and can find nothing that supports what you said.

That’s not support. Not finding a gold nugget in the mine isn’t support there is none. It’s merely initial proof of failure to find gold.

Since contracts not written are accepted as valid in Michigan (presuming acceptable support), the issue is proving the claim the apparent agreement must be in writing, not the other way around.