Caprio v. Healthcare Revenue Recovery Group, LLC
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 4221
| 3rd Cir. | 2013Background
- Caprio sued HRRG under the FDCPA for allegedly deceptive debt collection in a December 7, 2010 letter.
- HRRG acknowledged it can be a debt collector under 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6).
- The letter contained four paragraphs and a front/back structure including a Validation Notice on the reverse side.
- The front urged callers to call HRRG or write if the debtor felt they did not owe, with bold toll-free numbers.
- The district court granted HRRG’s Rule 12(c) motion; the Third Circuit vacated and remanded.
- The court evaluates whether the letter’s front-end invitation to call overshadowed the required written dispute/right-to-verify provisions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the letter overshadow the validation notice under §1692g(a)-(b)? | Caprio contends the front-end 'please call' language misleads and overshadows the validation notice. | HRRG argues the letter, read as a whole, does not overshadow the validation rights. | Yes; the letter overshadows the validation notice. |
| Does the front-end 'please call' language violate §1692e(10) by misleading dispute methods? | Caprio asserts the language misleads into believing a phone dispute suffices. | HRRG contends the language is a non-malseptic invitation to contact, not a false representation. | Yes; it supports a §1692e(10) claim due to misinformation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Graziano v. Harrison, 950 F.2d 107 (3d Cir. 1991) (validation notice must be effective and not overshadowed)
- Wilson v. Quadramed Corp., 225 F.3d 350 (3d Cir. 2000) (overshadowing/contradiction evaluated by form and substance)
- Payco-General American Credits, Inc., 943 F.2d 482 (4th Cir. 1991) (front-language demanding payment can overshadow validation rights)
- Terran v. Kaplan, 109 F.3d 1428 (9th Cir. 1997) (front language urging action vs. validation rights considered)