1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.:

ADISLEN PAZ DEL SOL,

Plaintiff,

vs.

HOMESTEAD HOSPITAL, INC., 

BAPTIST HEALTH SOUTH FLORIDA, 

INC., PARAGON CONTRACTING 

SERVICES, LLC, d/b/a TEAMHEALTH

FLORIDA, and HEALTHCARE REVENUE

RECOVERY GROUP, LLC, d/b/a 

HRRG, ARS ACCOUNT RESOLUTION 

SERVICES,

Defendants.

_________________________________/

COMPLAINT

1. Plaintiff alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. 

§1692 et seq. (“FDCPA”) and the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act, Fla. Stat. §559.55 

et seq. ("FCCPA"). Plaintiff ADISLEN PAZ DEL SOL (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) sues Defendant 

HOMESTEAD HOSPITAL, INC., Defendant BAPTIST HEALTH SOUTH FLORIDA, INC.,

PARAGON CONTRACTING SERVICES, LLC, d/b/a TEAMHEALTH FLORIDA, and 

Defendant HEALTHCARE REVENUE RECOVERY GROUP, LLC d/b/a HRRG, ARS 

ACCOUNT RESOLUTION SERVICES (collectively the “Defendants”) for violations of Fair 

Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C. §1692 et seq., and the Florida Consumer 

Collection Practices Act ("FCCPA"), Fla. Stat. §559.55 et seq. 

Case 1:22-cv-23684-JAL Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2022 Page 1 of 18
2

LEGAL STANDARD

2. The characterization of the FDCPA as a strict liability statute is generally accepted. 

See, e.g., LeBlanc v. Unifund CCR Partners, 601 F.3d 1185, 1190 (11th Cir. 2010). Pursuant to 

Florida Statute §559.55(2), (“FCCPA”), “nothing in this part shall be continued to limit or restrict 

the applicability of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act to consumer collection practices in this 

state. This part is in addition to the requirements and regulations of the federal act. In the event of 

any inconsistency between any provision of this part and any provision of the federal act, the 

provision which is more protective of the consumer shall prevail.”

JURISDICTION

3. Jurisdiction of this Court arises under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, §1337, and §1367, and 

pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq. (“FDCPA”) and the Florida Consumer Collection Practices 

Act, Fla. Stat. §559.55 et seq. ("FCCPA"). Under 28 U.S.C. 1367(a), this Court has supplemental 

jurisdiction over Plaintiff's stated FCCPA claims in that it is so related to the federal FDCPA 

claims that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States 

Constitution. 

4. This action arises out of Defendants’ violations of the FDCPA and FCCPA, in their 

illegal efforts to collect a consumer debt from Plaintiff.

5. Venue is proper in this District because the acts and transactions complained of 

occurred here, Plaintiff resides here, all of the Defendants transact and/or conduct business here, 

and all of the Defendants illegally attempted to collect a debt from Plaintiff within this venue. 

Case 1:22-cv-23684-JAL Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2022 Page 2 of 18
3

PARTIES

6. Plaintiff, ADISLEN PAZ DEL SOL, is a natural person who resides in the City of 

Homestead, County of Miami-Dade, State of Florida, and is a “consumer” as that term is defined 

by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(3).

7. Defendant HEALTHCARE REVENUE RECOVERY GROUP, LLC d/b/a HRRG, 

ARS ACCOUNT RESOLUTION SERVICES (hereinafter “HRRG/ARS,” respectively) is a 

collection agency operating from an address of 1643 North Harrison Parkway, Building H, Suite 

100, Sunrise, Florida 33323, is a “debt collector” as that term is defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6), 

and is a Florida limited liability company organized under the laws of the State of Florida.

8. Defendant HRRG/ARS engages in interstate commerce by regularly using 

telephone and mail in its business, the principal purpose of which is the collection of debts.

Defendant HRRG/ARS regularly collects or attempts to collect debts for other parties in the State 

of Florida. In this case, HRRG/ARS attempted to collect debt from the Plaintiff in Miami-Dade 

County, Florida, giving rise to this action. HRRG/ARS is authorized to and conducts business in 

the state of Florida and Miami-Dade County, Florida, where the Plaintiff resides. 

9. HRRG/ARS is a “debt collector” as defined in the FDCPA and FCCPA, under 15 

U.S.C. §1692a(6) and Florida Statute §559.55(6). 

10. At all material times, Defendant HRRG/ARS was acting as a debt collector with 

respect to the collection of Plaintiff’s alleged debt. 

11. Defendant BAPTIST HEALTH SOUTH FLORIDA, INC. (hereinafter 

“BAPTIST”), is a Florida Not for Profit Corporation, with its principal place of business located 

in 6855 Red Road, Suite 600, Coral Gables, Florida 33143. BAPTIST is authorized to and conducts

business in the state of Florida and Miami-Dade County, Florida, where Plaintiff resides.

Defendant BAPTIST is a “creditor” as that term is defined by the FCCPA.

Case 1:22-cv-23684-JAL Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2022 Page 3 of 18
4

12. Defendant BAPTIST conducts/transacts business within the State of Florida. It is a 

healthcare organization and clinical care network in Miami-Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach 

counties. It consists of a network of hospitals and outpatient facilities. It provides hospital, 

emergency services, and other medical services. Defendant BAPTIST’S website is 

https://www.baptisthealth.net.

13. Defendant HOMESTEAD HOSPITAL, INC. (hereinafter “HOMESTEAD”) is a

Florida Not for Profit Corporation with its principal place of business located in 975 Baptist Way, 

Homestead, Florida 33033. HOMESTEAD is a hospital that provides hospital, emergency 

services, and other medical services. HOMESTEAD is authorized to and conducts business in the 

state of Florida and Miami-Dade County, Florida, where Plaintiff resides. Defendant 

HOMESTEAD is a “creditor” as that term is defined by the FCCPA.

14. Defendant PARAGON CONTRACTING SERVICES, LLC, d/b/a 

TEAMHEALTH FLORIDA, (hereinafter “PARAGON,” respectively) is a medical group which 

provides medical services to patients at Homestead Hospital. It operates from an address of 1643 

NW 136th Avenue, Building H, Suite 100, Sunrise, Florida 33323, is a “creditor” as that term is 

defined by FCCPA, and is a Florida limited liability company organized under the laws of the 

State of Florida. Defendant PARAGON is authorized to and conducts business in the State of 

Florida and Miami-Dade County, Florida, where Plaintiff resides.

15. At all relevant times, Defendants HRRG/ARS, HOMESTEAD, BAPTIST, and 

PARAGON acted through their respective duly authorized agents, employees, officers, directors, 

members heirs assigns, successors, principals, trustees, sureties, subrogees, representatives, and 

insurers. 

Case 1:22-cv-23684-JAL Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2022 Page 4 of 18
5

16. At all relevant times, Defendant BAPTIST and Defendant HOMESTEAD were 

creditors attempting to collect an alleged debt for emergency services which Plaintiff sought at 

Homestead Hospital on June 8, 2021. 

17. At all relevant times, Defendant HRRG/ARS sought to collect a consumer debt on 

behalf of Defendant PARAGON for physician services provided to Plaintiff during said 

emergency room visit at Homestead Hospital. At all relevant times, Defendant PARAGON was 

the creditor of the debt that Defendant HRRG/ARS sought to collect from the Plaintiff.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

18. On or about June 8, 2021, Plaintiff suffered an accident and related injuries in the 

course of scope of his employment that required medical treatment and services (hereinafter 

“medical services”). Plaintiff sought emergency medical services at Defendant HOMESTEAD.

19. Plaintiff HOMESTEAD provided a portion of the medical services relative to 

Plaintiff’s injuries stemming from her work accident. 

20. During the time Defendant HOMESTEAD provided emergency medical services 

to the Plaintiff, Plaintiff informed Defendant HOMESTEAD that the injuries for which she 

required medical attention, treatment, and/or services (medical services) stemmed from a work 

accident and subsequent injuries that occurred within the course and scope of Plaintiff’s 

employment. In fact, the records from HOMESTEAD reflect that Plaintiff sought care for a work 

accident. A copy of relevant portion of said records is attached hereto as Exhibit A.

21. On or about June 20, 2021, July 4, 2021, and July 23, 2021, Defendants BAPTIST

and HOMESTEAD jointly sent collection letters to Plaintiff (hereinafter “BAPTIST and 

HOMESTEAD Collection Letters”) in attempts to collect a consumer debt. Said letters indicated 

that the amount owed by Plaintiff for treatment at the Emergency Department of HOMESTEAD

was $2,915.00. A copy of said Collection Letters are attached hereto as Composite Exhibit B.

Case 1:22-cv-23684-JAL Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2022 Page 5 of 18
6

22. The BAPTIST and HOMESTEAD Collection Letters each independently 

constitute communication from the Defendants BAPTIST and HOMESTEAD to Plaintiff in 

connection with the collection of a debt.

23. The BAPTIST and HOMESTEAD Collection Letters represent actions to attempt 

to collect a debt by Defendant BAPTIST and by Defendant HOMESTEAD.

24. On or about July 2021, July 6, 2021, and September 4, 2021, Defendant 

PARAGON sent collection letters to Plaintiff (hereinafter “PARAGON Collection Letters”) in 

attempts to collect a consumer debt. Said letters indicated that the bill was for physician services 

provided at the emergency department of Homestead Hospital for date of service of June 8, 2021 

and requested payment for bill in the amount of $1,199. A copy of said Collection Letters are 

attached hereto as Composite Exhibit C.

25. On or about April 5, 2022, Defendant HRRG/ARS sent a collection letter to 

Plaintiff (hereinafter “HRRG/ARS Collection Letter #1”) in an attempt to collect a consumer debt. 

Said letter indicated that PARAGON hired HRRG to collect the balance of $1,199.00, and it stated 

“Final Notice,” with service date of June 8, 2021. A copy of said Collection Letter is attached 

hereto as Exhibit D.

26. On or about August 3, 2022, Defendant HRRG/ARS sent another collection letter 

to Plaintiff (hereinafter “HRRG/ARS Collection Letter #2”) in an attempt to collect a consumer 

debt. Said letter advised Plaintiff that HRRG/ARS was trying to collect a debt owed to PARAGON

and continued billing the Plaintiff $1,199.00. A copy of said Collection Letter is attached hereto 

as Exhibit E.

27. The HRRG/ARS Collection Letters are communications from the Defendant 

HRRG/ARS to Plaintiff in connection with the collection of a debt on behalf of creditor 

PARAGON.

Case 1:22-cv-23684-JAL Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2022 Page 6 of 18
7

28. The HRRG Collection Letters represent actions to attempt to collect a debt by 

Defendant HRRG/ARS on behalf of Defendant PARAGON.

SUMMARY

29. All the above-described collection communications made to Plaintiff by Defendant

HRRG/ARS, and its collection employees, were made in violation of numerous and multiple 

provisions of the FDCPA, including but not limited to 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(2), 1692e(10), and 

1692f(1), amongst others.

30. During its collection communications, Defendants BAPTIST, HOMESTEAD,

PARAGON, and HRRG/ARS and their individual debt collectors employed by Defendants

violated numerous and multiple provisions of FCCPA, including but not limited to, Florida Statute 

§559.72, amongst others.

TRIAL BY JURY

31. Plaintiff is entitled to and hereby respectfully demands a trial by jury on all issues 

so triable. U.S. Const. amend. 7. Fed.R.Civ.P.38.

CAUSES OF ACTION

COUNT 1

VIOLATIONS OF THE FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT

VIOLATION OF FDCPA-15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq.

(against Defendant HRRG/ARS)

32. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 31 of this Complaint as 

though fully stated herein. 

33. The foregoing acts and omissions of the Defendant HRRG/ARS and its agents 

constitute numerous and multiple violations of the FDCPA including, but not limited to, Sections 

1692e(2), 1692e(10), and 1692f(1), of the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq.

Case 1:22-cv-23684-JAL Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2022 Page 7 of 18
8

34. As a result of the Defendant HRRG/ARS’s violations of the FDCPA, Plaintiff is 

entitled to statutory damages in an amount up to $1,000.00 pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(2)(A); 

and, reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(3), from the Defendant 

herein.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that this Honorable Court enter judgment in favor of 

Plaintiff and against Defendant HRRG/ARS for:

a) Damages; 

b) Attorney fees and costs; 

c) An injunction prohibiting Defendant HRRG/ARS from engaging in further collection 

activities that are in violation of FDCPA; and

 d) Such further relief as this Court deems just and proper.

COUNT 2

VIOLATIONS OF THE FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT

FALSELY REPRESENTING AMOUNT OF DEBT

VIOLATION OF FDCPA-15 U.S.C. § 1692e(2)

(against Defendant HRRG/ARS)

35. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 31 of this Complaint as 

though fully stated herein. 

36. Pursuant to Florida Statute §440.13(2)(a), an injured employee is entitled to “such 

medically necessary remedial treatment, care, and attendance for such period as the nature of the 

injury or the process of the recovery may require...”

37. Futher, pursuant to Florida Statute §440.13(13)(a), “[a] health care provider may 

not collect or receive a fee from an injured employee within this state, except as otherwise provided 

by this chapter. Such providers have recourse against the employer or carrier for payment for 

services rendered in accordance with this chapter.”

Case 1:22-cv-23684-JAL Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2022 Page 8 of 18
9

38. An employee is shielded from liability arising out of any dispute between the 

employer/carrier and a health care provider regarding reimbursement for the employee’s 

authorized medical or psychological treatment. Florida Statute §440.13.

39. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1692e(2), a debt collector may not use any false, deceptive, 

or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt including “the 

false representation of the character, amount, or legal status of any debt; or any services rendered 

or compensation which may be lawfully received by any debt collector for the collection of a debt.”

40. In the instant case, the Defendant HRRG/ARS mailed the HRRG/ARS Collection 

Letters to Plaintiff in attempts to collect a consumer debt. Said collection letters, however, causes 

the least sophisticated consumer to believe that he or she is otherwise responsible for the payment 

of the consumer debt. According to Florida Statute §440.13, Plaintiff is not responsible or liable 

for the payment of the medical (physician) services provided by PARAGON at Defendant 

HOMESTEAD, as such services were provided to the Plaintiff as a result of her work-related 

injuries.

41. In attempting to collect a debt by mailing the Plaintiff the HRRG/ARS Collection 

Letters, Defendant HRRG/ARS falsely misrepresented Plaintiff’s obligation with respect to the 

consumer debt. This misrespresentation would wrongfully cause the least sophisticated consumer 

to falsely believe that he or she is responsible for the payment of such consumer debt.

42. Consequently, Defendant HRRG/ARS violated FDCPA, specifically 15 U.S.C. 

§1692e(2), by mailing the HRRG Collection Letters to Plaintiff in an attempt to collect a debt. 

43. As a result of the Defendant HRRG’s violations of the FDCPA, Plaintiff is entitled 

to statutory damages in an amount up to $1,000.00 pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(2)(A); and, 

reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(3), from the Defendant 

herein.

Case 1:22-cv-23684-JAL Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2022 Page 9 of 18
10

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that this Honorable Court enter judgment in favor of 

Plaintiff and against Defendant HRRG/ARS for:

a) Damages; 

b) Attorney fees and costs; 

c) An injunction prohibiting Defendant HRRG/ARS from engaging in further collection 

activities that are in violation of FDCPA; and

 d) Such further relief as this Court deems just and proper.

COUNT 3

FALSE REPRESENTATION IN ATTEMPT TO COLLECT

VIOLATION OF FDCPA-15 U.S.C. § 1692e(10)

(against Defendant HRRG/ARS)

44. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 31 of this Complaint as 

though fully stated herein. 

45. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(10), a debt collector cannot use any false 

representation or deceptive means to collect or attempt to collect any debt or to obtain information 

concerning a consumer. 

46. By sending the Plaintiff the HRRG/ARS Collection Letters requesting payment of 

a bill that it knew or had reason to know Plaintiff did not owe, Defendant HRRG/ARS falsely 

represented Plaintiff’s responsibility to pay said medical bill, which it knew Plaintiff did not owe, 

in violation of 15 U.S.C. §1692e(10).

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that this Honorable Court enter judgment in favor of 

Plaintiff and against Defendant HRRG/ARS for:

a) Damages; 

b) Attorney fees and costs; 

Case 1:22-cv-23684-JAL Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2022 Page 10 of 18
11

c) An injunction prohibiting Defendant HRRG/ARS from engaging in further collection 

activities that are in violation of FDCPA; and

 d) Such further relief as this Court deems just and proper.

COUNT 4

NOT EXPRESSLY AUTHORIZED OR PERMITTED BY LAW

VIOLATION OF FDCPA-15 U.S.C. § 1692f(1)

(against Defendant HRRG/ARS)

 

47. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 31 of this Complaint as 

though fully stated herein. 

48. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692f(1), it is a violation of FDCPA for a debt collector to 

engage in the “collection of any amount (including any interest, fee, charge, or expense incidential 

to the principal obligation), unless such amount is expressly authorized by the agreement creating 

the debt or permitted by law.”

49. Since Defendant HRRG/ARS knew that the medical services rendered by 

Defendant HOMESTEAD were for work injuries sustained during the course and scope of 

employment, it was unlawful for Defendant HRRG/ARS to attempt to collect the consumer debt 

under FDCPA. The debt that Defendant HRRG/ARS attempted to collect from Plaintiff was not 

expressly authorized by the agreement creating the alleged debt nor was it permitted by law, 

pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692f(1).

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that this Honorable Court enter judgment in favor of 

Plaintiff and against Defendant HRRG/ARS for:

a) Damages; 

b) Attorney fees and costs; 

c) An injunction prohibiting Defendant HRRG/ARS from engaging in further collection 

activities that are in violation of FDCPA; and

Case 1:22-cv-23684-JAL Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2022 Page 11 of 18
12

 d) Such further relief as this Court deems just and proper.

COUNT 5

VIOLATIONS OF THE FLORIDA CONSUMER COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT

FLORIDA STATUTE §559.55 et seq. ("FCCPA")

(against Defendants HRRG/ARS, HOMESTEAD, BAPTIST, and PARAGON)

50. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the above paragraphs 1 through 31 of this 

Complaint as though fully stated herein. 

51. The foregoing acts and omissions of the Defendants HRRG/ARS, BAPTIST, and 

HOMESTEAD, and PARAGON, and its agents constitute violation of the FCCPA including

Florida Statute § 559.72.

52. As a result of the Defendants’ violations of the FCCPA, Plaintiff is entitled to 

statutory damages in an amount up to $1,000.00 pursuant to Florida Statute § 559.77(2), and 

reasonable attorney's fees and costs pursuant to § 559.77(2), in each instance from each Defendant 

herein.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that this Honorable Court enter judgment in favor of 

Plaintiff and against Defendants HRRG/ARS, BAPTIST, HOMESTEAD, and PARAGON for:

a) Damages; 

b) Attorney fees and costs; 

c) An injunction prohibiting Defendants HRRG/ARS, BAPTIST, HOMESTEAD, and 

PARAGON from engaging in further collection activities that are in violation of FCCPA; and

 d) Such further relief as this Court deems just and proper.

Case 1:22-cv-23684-JAL Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2022 Page 12 of 18
13

COUNT 6

VIOLATION OF §559.72(9) OF THE FLORIDA

CONSUMER COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT

(against Defendants HRRG/ARS, HOMESTEAD, BAPTIST, and PARAGON)

53. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the above paragraphs 1 through 31 of this 

Complaint as though fully stated herein.

54. Pursuant to § 559.72(9) of the FCCPA, while collecting debts, no person shall 

“claim, attempt, or threaten to enforce a debt when such person knows that the debt is not 

legitimate, or assert the existence of some other legal right when such person knows that the right 

does not exist.”

55. Pursuant to Florida Statute §440.13(2)(a), an injured employee is entitled to “such 

medically necessary remedial treatment, care, and attendance for such period as the nature of the 

injury or the process of the recovery may require...”

56. Further, pursuant to Florida Statute §440.13(13)(a), “[a] health care provider may 

not collect or receive a fee from an injured employee within this state, except as otherwise provided 

by this chapter. Such providers have recourse against the employer or carrier for payment for 

servcies rendered in accordance with this chapter.”

57. An employee is shielded from liability arising out of any dispute between the 

employer/carrier and a health care provider regarding reimbursement for the employee’s 

authorized medical or psychological treatment. Florida Statute §440.13.

58. In the instant case, the Defendant HRRG/ARS knew that the consumer debt resulted 

from a work accident and resulting injuries sustained by the Plaintiff during the course and scope 

of his employment. The Defendant HRRG/ARS knew that the Defendants BAPTIST and 

HOMESTEAD could not collect or receive payment from an injured employee within the State of 

Florida except explicitly permitted by Florida Statute. Moreover, Defendant HRRG/ARS knew 

Case 1:22-cv-23684-JAL Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2022 Page 13 of 18
14

that the employee/Plaintiff is shielded from liability in any dispute between the employer/carrier 

and health care provider regarding reimbursement for employee/Plaintiff’s authorized medical 

treatment. 

59. Even though Defendant HRRG/ARS was well aware that it had no entitlement or 

authority to collect the consumer debt from the Plaintiff directly, Defendant HRRG/ARS

nonetheless mailed the HRRG/ARS Collection Letters to Plaintiff in an attempt to collect the 

consumer debt. In light of the foregoing, the Defendant HRRG/ARS violated Florida Statute § 

559.72(9) of the FCCPA by mailing said collection letter to the Plaintiff. 

60. In the instant case, the Defendants HOMESTEAD and BAPTIST knew that the 

consumer debt resulted from a work accident and resulting injuries sustained by the Plaintiff during 

the course and scope of his employment. The Defendants HOMESTEAD and BAPTIST knew it 

could not collect or receive payment from an injured employee within the State of Florida except 

explicitly permitted by Florida Statute. Moreover, Defendants HOMESTEAD and BAPTIST knew 

that the employee/Plaintiff is shielded from liability in any dispute between the employer/carrier 

and health care provider regarding reimbursement for employee/Plaintiff’s authorized medical 

treatment. 

61. Even though Defendants HOMESTEAD and BAPTIST were well aware that it had 

no entitlement or authority to collect the consumer debt from the Plaintiff directly, Defendants 

HOMESTEAD and BAPTIST nonetheless mailed the BAPTIST and HOMESTEAD Collection 

Letters to Plaintiff in an attempt to collect the consumer debt. The BAPTIST and HOMESTEAD 

Collection Letters stated that the amount listed was Plaintiff’s responsibility. In light of the 

foregoing, Defendants HOMESTEAD and BAPTIST violated Florida Statute § 559.72(9) of the 

FCCPA by mailing said collection letter to the Plaintiff. 

Case 1:22-cv-23684-JAL Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2022 Page 14 of 18
15

62. Similarly, the Defendant PARAGON knew that the consumer debt resulted from a 

work accident and resulting injuries sustained by the Plaintiff during the course and scope of her 

employment as Claimant notified all physicians and HOMESTEAD at time of treatment on June 

8, 2021. Defendant PARAGON knew that it could not collect or receive payment from an injured 

employee within the State of Florida except explicitly permitted by Florida Statute. Moreover, 

Defendant PARAGON knew that the employee/Plaintiff is shielded from liability in any dispute 

between the employer/carrier and health care provider regarding reimbursement for 

employee/Plaintiff’s authorized medical treatment. 

63. Even though Defendant PARAGON was well aware that it had no entitlement or 

authority to collect the consumer debt from the Plaintiff directly, it nonetheless mailed the 

PARAGON Collection Letters to Plaintiff in an attempt to collect the consumer debt. In light of 

the foregoing, the Defendant PARAGON violated Florida Statute § 559.72(9) of the FCCPA by 

mailing said collection letter to the Plaintiff. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that this Honorable Court enter judgment in favor of 

Plaintiff and against Defendants HRRG/ARS, HOMESTEAD, BAPTIST, and PARAGON for:

a) Damages; 

b) Attorney fees and costs; 

c) An injunction prohibiting Defendants HRRG/ARS, HOMESTEAD, BAPTIST, and 

PARAGON from engaging in further collection activities that are in violation of FCCPA; and

 d) Such further relief as this Court deems just and proper.

Case 1:22-cv-23684-JAL Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2022 Page 15 of 18
16

COUNT 7

VIOLATION OF 559.72(5) OF THE FLORIDA

CONSUMER COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT

(against Defendant PARAGON)

64. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the above paragraphs 1 through 31 of this 

Complaint as though fully stated herein.

65. Pursuant to Florida Statute §440.13(2)(a), an injured employee is entitled to “such 

medically necessary remedial treatment, care, and attendance for such period as the nature of the 

injury or the process of the recovery may require...”

66. Further, pursuant to Florida Statute §440.13(13)(a), “[a] health care provider may 

not collect or receive a fee from an injured employee within this state, except as otherwise provided 

by this chapter. Such providers have recourse against the employer or carrier for payment for 

servcies rendered in accordance with this chapter.”

67. An employee is shielded from liability arising out of any dispute between the 

employer/carrier and a health care provider regarding reimbursement for the employee’s 

authorized medical or psychological treatment. Florida Statute §440.13.

68. Pursuant to § 559.72(5) of the FCCPA, while collecting debts, no person shall 

“disclose to a person other than the debtor or her or his family information affecting the debtor’s 

reputation, whether or not for credit worthiness, with knowledge or reason to know that the other 

person does not have a legitimate business need for the information or that the information is 

false.” Florida Statute §559.72(5). 

69. The consumer debt is a result of physician services rendered by Defendant 

PARAGON at the emergency room of HOMESTEAD on June 8, 2021 to Plaintiff for an accident 

and injuries sustained by the Plaintiff in the course and scope of employment. Since, at the time of 

treatment, Plaintiff reported to Defendant HOMESTEAD and PARAGON that the injuries 

Case 1:22-cv-23684-JAL Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2022 Page 16 of 18
17

sustained resulted from a work accident, Defendant PARAGON knew that it could not collect or 

receive a fee from the injured employee within the State of Florida. Further, Defendant 

PARAGON knew that the Plaintiff is shielded from liability in any dispute between the 

employer/carrier and the health care provider regarding reimbursement for the employee’s 

authorized medical treatment. 

70. Despite knowledge that it could not lawfully collect a consumer debt from the 

Plaintiff, Defendant PARAGON proceeded to refer the collection of said consumer debt to 

Defendant HRRG/ARS. In so doing, Defendant PARAGON knowingly disclosed to Defendant 

HRRG/ARS information affecting Plaintiff’s reputation that the Defendant HRRG/ARS did not 

have a legitimate business need for and/or the information was false. 

71. Consequently, Defendant PARAGON’S actions violated §559.72(5) of the FCCPA 

when it referred the collection of the consumer debt to Defendant HRRG/ARS for collection.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that this Honorable Court enter judgment in favor of 

Plaintiff and against Defendant PARAGON for:

a) Damages; 

b) Attorney fees and costs; 

c) An injunction prohibiting Defendant PARAGON from engaging in further collection 

activities that are in violation of FCCPA; and

 d) Such further relief as this Court deems just and proper.

Case 1:22-cv-23684-JAL Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2022 Page 17 of 18
18

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that this Honorable Court enter judgment in favor of 

Plaintiff and against Defendants HRRG/ARS, HOMESTEAD, BAPTIST, and PARAGON for: 

a) Damages under FDCPA and FCCPA; 

b) Reasonable attorney’s fees and costs under FDCPA and FCCPA; 

c) An injunction prohibiting Defendants HRRG/ARS, HOMESTEAD, BAPTIST, and 

PARAGON from engaging in further collection activities that are in violation of FCCPA and 

FDCPA; and

d) Such further relief as this Court deems just and proper.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that judgment be entered against the Defendants 

HRRG/ARS, HOMESTEAD, BAPTIST, and PARAGON.

Dated: November 9, 2022

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Monica Amor______________________

AMOR LAW FIRM, P.A.

Monica Amor, Esq.

E-mail: mamor@amorlaw.com

Florida Bar No: 0118664

3625 NW 82nd Avenue, Suite 203

Doral, Florida 33166

Telephone: (305) 882-2667

Facsimile: (888) 311-2667

Attorney for Plaintiff

Case 1:22-cv-23684-JAL Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2022 Page 18 of 18