Mark S. Mais v. Gulf Coast Collection Bureau, Inc.
768 F.3d 1110
| 11th Cir. | 2014Background
- Mark Mais received radiology services at a hospital; his wife provided his cell number on hospital admissions forms and signed a HIPAA Notice permitting disclosure of health information for billing.
- Florida United Radiology billed Mais; McKesson (billing agent) forwarded the account to Gulf Coast Collection Bureau, which placed 15 calls to Mais’s cell phone using a predictive dialer and left messages.
- Mais sued under the TCPA, claiming Gulf Coast made autodialed/prerecorded calls without his prior express consent; defendants asserted the 2008 FCC Declaratory Ruling created a prior-express-consent exception covering numbers provided to creditors and invoked HIPAA-based disclosure as the source of consent.
- The district court granted Mais partial summary judgment, concluding the FCC’s 2008 interpretation conflicted with the TCPA and, alternatively, that the FCC rule did not apply to medical debts or where the number was given to an intermediary rather than directly to the creditor.
- On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit held the district court lacked jurisdiction under the Hobbs Act to invalidate the FCC order and concluded the 2008 FCC Ruling did cover medical-debt collection and applied where a patient authorized an intermediary (the hospital) to disclose the number to the creditor.
- Judgment reversed: remanded with instructions to enter summary judgment for Gulf Coast based on prior express consent as interpreted by the FCC.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a district court can invalidate or refuse to apply a final FCC order in a TCPA private suit | Mais: District court may decide TCPA statutory interpretation in private suit; this is not collateral attack | Gulf Coast: Hobbs Act gives courts of appeals exclusive jurisdiction to review FCC orders; district court lacks authority | District court lacked jurisdiction to review or invalidate the 2008 FCC Ruling under the Hobbs Act; courts of appeals have exclusive review authority |
| Whether the 2008 FCC Declaratory Ruling’s prior-express-consent interpretation applies to medical debts | Mais: Ruling was limited to consumer/creditor credit transactions and not medical settings | Gulf Coast: Ruling addressed creditors/collectors broadly and includes medical creditors | 2008 FCC Ruling applies to medical debt collection; Florida United qualified as a creditor under the ruling |
| Whether a number provided to a hospital/intermediary qualifies as "provided to the creditor" under the 2008 FCC Ruling | Mais: Number was given only to the hospital, not directly to the creditor, so no consent to creditor/collector | Gulf Coast: Consent can be conveyed via intermediaries when patient authorizes disclosure for billing | The FCC’s interpretation encompasses numbers provided via intermediaries when the patient authorized disclosure for billing; Mais’s wife authorized hospital to disclose number to creditor |
| Whether HIPAA compliance equals TCPA prior express consent | Mais: HIPAA disclosure does not automatically create TCPA consent; separate statutes | Gulf Coast: Hospital’s HIPAA-permitted disclosure supports that the number was provided to creditor | HIPAA compliance alone does not automatically create TCPA consent, but here HIPAA notice and patient authorization meant the number was provided to the creditor consistent with the FCC’s prior-express-consent standard |
Key Cases Cited
- Self v. BellSouth Mobility, Inc., 700 F.3d 453 (11th Cir.) (Hobbs Act deprives district courts of jurisdiction to determine validity of final FCC orders)
- CE Design, Ltd. v. Prism Bus. Media, Inc., 606 F.3d 443 (7th Cir. 2010) (Hobbs Act review promotes uniform nationwide interpretation and places initial agency review in courts of appeals)
- FCC v. ITT World Commc’ns, Inc., 466 U.S. 463 (1984) (exclusive jurisdiction for review of final FCC orders lies in the courts of appeals)
- Fla. Power & Light Co. v. Lorion, 470 U.S. 729 (1985) (presumption that initial APA review of agency action belongs in courts of appeals absent clear congressional intent otherwise)
- Osorio v. State Farm Bank, F.S.B., 746 F.3d 1242 (11th Cir. 2014) (courts may decide whether an FCC ruling applies to particular facts without adjudicating the rule’s validity)
- Nack v. Walburg, 715 F.3d 680 (8th Cir. 2013) (Hobbs Act limits district court jurisdiction over challenges to FCC orders raised as defenses)
- Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984) (framework for judicial deference to agency statutory interpretations)