Product: Debt collection

The debtor utilized the billings and/or credit reports that she had in her possession at the time she prepared her XXXX Chapter XXXX bankruptcy. A medical facility was listed individually for debts to be discharged and a Collection Company that the medical provider assigned some debts to was also listed. After the bankruptcy was discharged in XX/XX/XXXX the debtor noted that the collection agency had listed 60 individual collection accounts on the credit bureau. The medical provider assigns XXXX account number on a bill. Though invoice numbers XXXX be generated for a date and time certain there is only one creditor. The Collection Company listed 60 individual bills on the creditors report. These showed various dates and times that the debtor saw the medical provider which was prejudicial and capricious and audacious. After sending a letter to the medical provider and Collection Company stating that she would seek sanctions from the bankruptcy court for violating the rules with regard to trying to collect a debt after it was discharged I bankruptcy. The Collection Company only listed XXXX debts. Of those debts, the debtor had provided insurance information for the Medical Provider to forward their billing. The Medical Provider failed to submit their bills to the XXXX insurance company has one account number. Showing individual dates is a violation of HIPPA which is prejudicial and allows a prospective employer to presume that the debtor is sick on innumerable occasions. When a debtor lists a creditor on a bankruptcy petition the Creditor is listed once with a total amount owing. When a lawsuit is filed against a creditor there is only one amount listed and not 60 individual amounts. 
After the debtor filed sent the Collection Company they removed 29 individual accounts. Showing only 49 collection accounts listed on the debtor 's credit report. The medical provider failed to submit the billings that were as a result of her XXXX and XXXX motor vehicle accident to the ( Insurance Co. # 1 and Insurance Company @ ). Further, Insurance Company 1 requested on innumerable occasions that Medical Provider to submit billing and records in order to receive payment. 
In the interim, the Medical Provider violated HIPPA rules even though the debtor had provided a letter to them that she revoked any release of information. It was later discovered that a third party medical copier company had signed a statement on XX/XX/XXXX that they had received protected health information that was not intended for them. The third party copier company further stated that they had not disclosed the protected health information and they further stated that they had deleted the same from their computer system on XX/XX/XXXX. The medical provider allowed protected medical information to be disclosed to an entity without her permission even though there was a letter from the debtor stating that she forbade, revoked, and requested that no information be released. 
The medical provider is the 'captain '' of their records. They have control who they release medical information to, they certify third parties to pull records and access their records. The debtor was damaged by the disclosure of her protected medical records. The Medical Provider 's Supervisor of Medical Records forwarded an assurance form from a third party agency who admitted obtaining protected health information on XX/XX/XXXX and asserted that those protected medical records were destroyed on XX/XX/XXXX. But that proved to be untrue. The debtor was then refused medical service by the Medical Provider even though she prsented a card for payment. This is retalatory.