Dr office used unauthorized $ to clear disputed bill

[Haleybug]

What is the name of your state?NJ
Quick question I had to pay for an orthodic upfront prior to insurance paying to have ordered. Dr explained once ins paid i would be returned this money. However, instead I have other bills that are being disputed however without my authorization dr states that money i was to have been returned was used to clear the disputed bills and i now keep getting run around So I didnt pay for a valid bill which now they are demanding payment. Do they have the right to use money on acct for a non intended use without my authorization esp when this money was flagged for one purpose??

 

[Haleybug]

Sorry I keep looking and wondering if this is where I should have posted this question ..if not pls advise and I will put in different section..thank you again

 

[Chien]

Use of punctuation trails off quickly, so let me first re-state the question.

You paid a doctor for a procedure, with the understanding that the doctor would re-pay you, when the doctor received a second payment for the same procedure from your insurer. The doctor was paid by the insurer but, instead of re-paying you, he/she applied your funds to clear other outstanding bills of yours. You want to know if that could be done without your authorization. Yes?

If I'm correct, the answer is yes.

The answer would be no, if you had an express written agreement that your funds would be used exclusively in that manner and exclusively for that purpose and would be returned to you when there was proof that the doctor had been compensated by the carrier.

The reason for saying express written agreement is that you probably had, at best, a verbal agreement and you probably can't prove any agreement. On the other hand, you and the doctor would agree that there were additional outstanding bills (disputed or not). The doctor got your money and used it to clear your bills.

Maybe it wasn't very nice, if it wasn't what you expected, but it wasn't illegal. You still have a right to challenge the disputed bills but, until you invalidate them, the doctor has a right to get paid. You provided the money to accomplish that, and that's what you'd be facing if you tried to prove a verbal agreement to the contrary.

 

[Haleybug]

sorry about the confusion you are pretty much right
1) I paid dr for a specific orthodic that had to be ordered. I wrote on the check for orthodic. Dr stated once insurance pays I will receive the money back
2) I had written complaints about certain bills and disputed to dr office
3) When ins paid for orthodic instead of returning my check they used to clear the disputed billing

I would think that authorization would be needed to take money which was flagged for one thing to clear a disputed item..
I know you stated since it was verbal agreement and I dont have in writing it is my word but the check did state for orthodic or does that not matter
thank you again for your help

 

[Chien]

My initial response was essentially "yes, unless . . ." Now you've added more information.

A court could possibly look at the notation on the check and decide that it's evidence of an agreement, but I think that it's reaching and the notation says nothing about the part of an agreement that concerns you - returning the funds.

Then there's the issue of the injury or the damages. I think that, stated or not, Small Claims courts try to *find* an element of fairness in the final resolution, if necessary and appropriate. Personally, I think that a court would consider the fact of the other outstanding bills and regard payment as proper. As I noted previously, you can still dispute them, if you wish.

I think that you have a steep road to climb, and I'm not optimistic about your chances, but it's an open forum, and you may get more encouraging opinions.