Medical Informatics Data Breach Class Action Lawsuit

This lawsuit alleges that Medical Informatics Engineering violated the law by having inadequate security protocols in place such that patients’ sensitive medical and financial records in its custody were stolen.

This is one of the growing number of data breach cases.  Medical Informatics Engineering, Inc. is an information and technology company, specializing in custom solutions to the maintenance of electronic health records and employee health management IT for health care providers.

In a July 23, 2015 press release, Medical Informatics Engineering stated that its systems had been hacked and that the following information about patients had been stolen:

  • The person’s name,
  • Telephone numbers,
  • Mailing addresses,
  • Usernames,
  • Hashed passwords,
  • Security questions and answers,
  • Spousal information (name and potentially date of birth),
  • Email address,
  • Date of birth,
  • Social Security number,
  • Lab results,
  • Health insurance policy information,
  • Diagnoses,
  • Disability codes,
  • Doctor’s names,
  • Medical conditions, and 
  • Children’s names and birth statistics

Medical Informatics Engineering further identified the following health care providers as those which were affected by the data breach, and the patients of these providers were those whose data was

  • Concentra
  • Allied Physicians, Inc. d/b/a Fort Wayne Neurological Center (including Neurology, Physical Medicine and Neurosurgery)
  • Franciscan St. Francis Health Indianapolis
  • Gynecology Center, Inc., Ft. Wayne
  • Rochester Medical Group
  • RediMed
  • Fort Wayne Radiology Association, LLC including d/b/a Nuvena Vein Center and Dexa Diagnostics
  • Open View MRI, LLC
  • Breast Diagnostic Center, LLC
  • P.E.T. Imaging Services, LLC
  • MRI Center – Fort Wayne Radiology, Inc. (d/b/a Advanced Imaging Systems, Inc.)

This lawsuit may rise or fall based on proof of actual damages.

FGX Merchandiser Unpaid Wages Class Action Lawsuit

FGX International employees Merchandisers.  These are employees that go to retail stores and collect information regarding product placement and to update each store's inventory.  FGX pays Merchandisers on a per store visit basis and not hourly.  This lawsuit alleges that this pay structure violates federal and state laws regarding minimum wage, overtime pay and unpaid off the clock work.

Plaintiff was previously employed by FGX as a Merchandiser. During the course of her employment, FGX employed hundreds of persons throughout South Carolina as Merchandisers. 

The lawsuit alleges that FGX sent its Merchandisers to retail stores to collect and record information about product placement and inventory. Merchandisers also installed, set up, maintained, and took down product displays. Merchandisers then relayed to FGX information collected on their visits including how much product to order for each store. FGX did not, however, pay the Merchandisers for all the time that it required them to work and did not reimburse them for their required and employment-related use of internet access and cell phone service. 

Further, the complaint alleges that instead of compensating Merchandisers for the reasonably approximate costs of the business use of their vehicles, FGX payed Merchandisers a flat rate per store that results in the payment of an unreasonably low reimbursement rate beneath any reasonable approximation of the expenses they incur. During some or all workweeks, unreimbursed expenses and off-the clock work by Merchandisers caused their wages to fall below the wage rate required by federal and state minimum wage laws and resulted in FGX's failure to properly pay Merchandisers for overtime hours worked. 

This lawsuit alleges that this pay structure violates federal and state law.

Bank of America Illegal Debit Class Action Lawsuit

This lawsuit alleges that Bank oF America, Encore Capital and Asset Acceptance Corp violated various federal laws when Bank of America relying on legacy information about the plaintiffs, began electronically debiting their PNC bank account to pay off a disputed consumer debt.  

The plaintiffs had incurred a consumer debt with Bank of America sometime before June, 2012.  To pay off that debt, the plaintiffs had authorized Bank of America to debt their bank account at PNC Bank on a reoccurring basis.

In June, 2012, the plaintiffs stopped making payments on the debt and revoked their authorization for Bank of America to automatically debit their PNC bank account.  Those electronic debits ceased.

Bank of America sold or somehow transferred the debt to Asset Acceptance who subsequently brought suit in Pennsylvania state court in August, 2013.  Plaintiffs defended that lawsuit which was subsequently dismissed without prejudice. 

Asset Acceptance transferred the debt to Encore Capital.

Beginning in August, 2013, Bank of America began electronically debiting the plaintiffs PNC bank account $100 to satisfy the disputed consumer debt.  Bank of America did so even though the plaintiffs had specifically revoked Bank of America’s authorization to debit the PNC bank account.

The complaint alleges that the plaintiffs spent a good deal of time working with Bank of America to reverse these unauthorized electronic debts, to no avail.

This suit followed.  It alleges violations of a variety of important federal statutes.

Firstsource Advantage Illegal Debt Collection Class Action Lawsuit

This lawsuit alleges that Firstsource Advantage, an independent debt collection agency, while attempting to collect on an American Express debt violated federal and state laws by designing its collection letters to make it appear that this letters were in fact coming from American Express and not a third party debt collection company.

Firstsource Advantage is a debt collection company and as such it collects, or attempts
to collect, debts owed or alleged to be owed third parties.

One such third party is American Express.

The plaintiffs in this case allege that in 2014, they received several collection letters alleging they could pay off an American Express bill (which they had apparently defaulted on paying) for 60% of the face value then owing.

The lawsuit alleges that the collection letters appeared to be from American Express.  The letters had the distinctive American Express logo.  The letters were signed “American Express Global Collections.”  Further the letters stated that “In order to accept the offer, please call American Express at 1-877-443-0144.”  Allegedly, when the plaintiffs called the number someone identifying themselves as a representative of American Express answered the phone.

The lawsuit alleges that in fact, American Express had nothing to do with these letters and in fact at all times it was Firstsource pretending to be American Express.

Specifically, the lawsuit alleges that Firstsource intentionally masqueraded as American Express and uses its logo on its collection letters to deceive consumers, into believing:

  • that the collection letters were prepared and sent by American Express; 
  • that American Express can be reached at the addresses on the collection letters;
  • that any payment sent to those addresses would be received by American Express;
  • that any call to 1-877-443-0144 would connect the caller with a representative of American Express and
  • that American Express was attempting to collect the debt referenced therein rather than a third-party debt collector. 

Extended Warranty Unsolicited Telephone Calls Class Action Lawsuit

This lawsuit alleges that Got Warranty, NCWC and Palmer Administrative services violated the TCPA by placing automatic dialed marketing calls to both cell phones and landlines of consumers.

Got Warranty, NCWC and Palmer Administrative Servcies all appear to be in the business of providing third party extended warranties on automobiles.  Much of their business appears to come from cold calling consumers through out the country.

This lawsuit alleges that these three entities violated federal law that prohibits businesses from using auto dialers  to place calls to consumers on either their landlines or cell phones.

The lawsuit alleges that on July 6, 2015, the Plaintiff received a phone call from Caller ID Number labeled as (732) 719-3020.  When the call connected, there was an audible click from the receiver. After a pause, the call disconnected.  On July 14, 2015, the Plaintiff received a phone call from the same Caller ID Number, (732) 719-3020.  When the call connected, there was an audible click from the receiver. When the call connected with a telemarketing representative the Plaintiff was offered a vehicle service contract, which she did not desire and had not asked for.  The Plaintiff was given the website http://gotwarranty.com/ by the calling party, and informed that she was being called to be offered a vehicle service contact by Palmer Administration, which was “the administration arm of N.C.W.C., Inc.”.  The Plaintiff was also informed that Palmer Administrative would be underwriting the policy. When the Plaintiff inquired further about the calling party and the services being offered, she was given the address and Better Business Bureau website for N.C.W.C. if she needed to receive any more information.

Plaintiff is not a customer of the named defendants, has not provided the defendants with her information or cellular telephone number for the purposes of telemarketing, and has not given the defendants express written consent to place telemarketing calls to her cellular telephone number. 

Heartland cedarMAX Defective Siding Class Action Lawsuit

This lawsuit alleges that Heartland cedarMAX insulated vinyl siding is defectively designed and can not withstand normal exposure to the heat and sun and will prematurely warp, ripple, bug and fail during normal exposure to summer heat and solar absorption.

Plaintiff are Minnesota residents that own a home with “Pueblo”-colored  cedarMAX vinyl siding manufactured by ProVia.  From 2013 until the date of this lawsuit, the complaint chronicles how the plaintiffs attempted to get Provia to replace their defective siding under the 50 year warranty.  The plaintiffs met with first limited and then no success and therefore were forced to bring this suit.

The warranty is of particular concern in this case.  The vinyl siding is warranted for 50 years to the original purchaser of the siding to not chip, fade, corrode, crack from normal exposure to the elements.  The lawsuit further alleges that the warranty is transferable to subsequent owners.

Given the plaintiffs faded vinyls siding and other problems with the Heartland cedarMAX vinyl siding, the The complaint alleges that ProVia:

  • Breached its express warranty by failing to replace the damaged siding;
  • Breached its implied warranty contained in all commercial transactions unless waived;
  • Negligence in the design and installation of the siding;
  • Consumer Fraud for selling knowingly defective siding;
  • Unlawful Trade Practices again for selling defective products;
  • Deceptive Trade Practices by concealing the known defects; and
  • False Advertising for again overstating the durability of the siding.

Collecto Debt Collection QR Code Exposure Class Action Lawsuit

This lawsuit alleges that Collecto dba EOS CCO violated federal and state law regarding debt collection practices by placing customer QR codes in the window of the envelope which in turn makes it visible to all.  A person can scan the QR code and determine the customers account number which arguably is illegal when visible without opening the envelope.

This is a relatively simple case.  Collecto is a debt collector.  When communicating with consumers that owe a debt, Collecto sends written communications in an envelope with a window in the front.  That window contains the name and address of the customer.  

It also contains a QR Code, which is a type of matrix barcode which is a machine-readable optical label that contains information about the item to which it is attached.

Anyone with a smart phone can read the QR Code and determine the account number of the customer.  

Exposure to the public of the customer’s account most likely violates federal debt collection laws.

Trinet (TNET) Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit

This lawsuit alleges that TriNet did not properly model medical and insurance costs for its workers compensation services, thereby overstating revenues and net income for the time period in question.  What makes these allegations partially troubling is that the industry as a whole seemed to be adjusting costs upward at a time when the company was assuring investors it did not need to do the same.

TriNet provides bundled HR outsourcing services to medium size companies.  These bundled services include services such as payroll processing, human capital consulting, employment law compliance and employee benefits, including health insurance, retirement plans and workers compensation insurance.  For health insurance and workers compensation services, the company does buy some third party insurance but also assumes some of the risk itself so forecasting future claims is critical to predict future revenues and net income.

This lawsuit alleges that TriNet made false and misleading statements or failed to disclose adverse events for fiscal 2014 and 2015, including the following:

TriNet’s processes and methodologies for analyzing and accruing claims failed to properly account for historical claims trends;

TriNet’s forecasting process failed to properly incorporate relevant historical and current claims trends;

TriNet was experiencing growing claims trends in medical and workers compensation that negatively affected the Company’s current and future business prospects; and

In light of the above, TriNet’s publicly stated financial outlook did not have a reasonable basis.

Uber Spam Text Message Class Action Lawsuit

This lawsuit alleges that Uber sent text messages to consumers who had not signed up for the company’s services.

The TCPA prohibits unsolicited text messages to cell phones.  (A gross simplification I know.)

SO what to do if you receive 8 or so messages from Uber asking you to confirm your recently created account?

You sue of course.

The class action complaint alleges that the plaintiff Maria Vergara received up to eight text messages from Uber.  Each message apparently asked her to confirm the details of her account.  Yet according to the lawsuit, Vergara never in fact signed up for an Uber account.  

This lawsuit then seeks to verify a class of people all of whom reside in the United States who, within four years prior to the filing date of the lawsuit received one or more text message calls from Uber where the called party was not the same individual who, according to Uber’s records, provided the phone number to Uber.

The specific facts are as follows:

On June 14, 2015, Plaintiff’s cell phone rang, indicating that two identical text calls were being received. The “from” field of the transmission was identified as “(469) 275-4970,” which is a specialized telephone number utilized by Uber and its agents for the transmission of text messages en masse. The body of each text message read:

Your Uber account
verification number is:
9274. Enter this in our
app to confirm your
Uber account.

On July 18, 2015, Plaintiff was sent yet another text call from Uber that read:

Your Uber account
verification number is:
0133. Enter this in our
app to confirm your
Uber account.

Then on  August 2, 2015, Plaintiff was sent at least six (6) more text calls by Defendant
containing similar confirmation requests, yet with differing verification numbers embedded.

At no time did Plaintiff attempt to acquire the Uber application, become a customer of Uber or otherwise use Uber. Moreover, at no time did Uber confirm the ownership of the phone number to which it was transmitting text messages.

Vital Recovery Services Unpaid Overtime Class Action Lawsuit

This case alleges that two debt collection agencies violated federal and state law by not paying time and a half for overtime worked and by requiring that employees clock out and continue to work.  

The employees that are part of this lawsuit are debt collectors.  Presumably, these employees work in a call center work environment and call consumers to collect on unpaid debt.

The complaint alleges several violations:

First, that debt collectors were required to work over 40 hours per week but were not paid time and a half for all overtime hours.

Second, that the owner or manager required that employees punch out and continue to work.  This is often termed “off the clock” work.

Third, that the employer at times went into the time keeping system and changed employees hours worked.

The complaint alleges violation of federal law and Georgia law.