Collection Consultants of California has willfully and blatantly violated the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act ( HIPAA ), the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ), and the California State Debt Statute of Limitations laws with regards to an alleged debt they claim I owe them {$1500.00} for medical services related to account number XXXX XXXX. <P/>I previously requested validation ( not verification ) of this alleged debt pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 USC 1692g Sec. 809 ( b ). Their response dated XX/XX/XXXX violated the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act ( HIPAA ) by listing Personal Health Information ( PHI ) without obtaining a medical release form with my signature authorizing the release of such records. Again, the medical services listed on the correspondence were never rendered to me and are being reported incorrectly. <P/>Please be advised that under Federal Statutes, The Fair Credit Reporting Act, ( 15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq ) and Californias Consumer Credit Statutes, and subtitle D of the AAR, SEC. 13401. APPLICATIONS OF SECURITY PROVISIONS AND PENALTIES TO BUSINESS ASSOCIATES OF COVERED ENTITIES ; and SEC. 13407 ( 1 ) BREACH OF SECURITY. <P/>The term breach of security means, with respect to unsecured PHR identifiable health information of an individual personal health record, acquisition of such information without the authorization of the individual. <P/>Please note that these liabilities are under the penalty rules of the Omnibus Final Rule effective XX/XX/XXXX interpreting and implementing various provisions of the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act of XXXX ( HITECH Act ) as issued XX/XX/XXXX ( a ) Duty of furnishers of information to provide accurate information. ( 1 ) Prohibition.
( A ) Reporting information with actual knowledge of errors. <P/>HIPAA and Californias Medical Privacy Statutes and the penalty provisions of the ARRA section D, privacy provisions, the penalty rules of the HITECH Act as issued XX/XX/XXXX and the Omnibus Final Rule effectiveXX/XX/XXXX and the FACT Act final rules effective XX/XX/XXXX are in effect in this situation. <P/>The Privacy Rules prohibits a covered entity from using or disclosing an individuals protected health information ( PHI ) unless specifically authorized by the individual or otherwise allowed under the Privacy Rules. <P/>In general, PHI encompasses substantially all individually identifiable health information that is transmitted or maintained in any medium. Individually identifiable health information includes health information that is created or received by a health care provider, health plan, employer, or health care clearinghouse, and that relates to an individuals physical or mental health or condition, including information related to an individuals care or the PAYMENT for such care. <P/>Consequently, Collection Consultants of California have continued to violate the FDCPA law by not conducting a proper re-investigation of this alleged debt. My correspondence datedXX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, not only requested validation but that their office provide competent evidence bearing my signature showing that I have a contractual obligation to pay this alleged debt. They were also instructed to provide me with a full description regarding the steps taken to rightfully validate this alleged debt to ascertain its being reported accurately by their office. Unfortunately, the computer-generated itemization report provided does not validate this alleged debt but does confirm their violations of both the FDCPA and HIPAA laws. <P/>Additionally, they you should be aware that the statute of limitations on all debts in the state of California is 4 years, except those made orally. The Statute of Limitations has long expired on this alleged debt. If it indeed exists, its considered uncollectible. In the legal parlances of the state of California Attorney Generals office, this is a zombie debt, and their firm could face severe consequences for pursuing this alleged debt any further. Please note that in XXXX XXXX, Plaintiff, vs. XXXX XXXX, No. XXXX XXXX United States Court for the District of Arizona, XXXX, the courts ruled that reporting a collection account on a credit report is considered collection activity.