Texas (1)


Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) (16)

Topics and Issues

Medical debt (3)

Preemption (5)

In September 2019, CDIA filed suit against the State of Texas challenging the validity of a law that changes the way medical debt is reported to credit bureaus. The Texas law is preempted by the FCRA. In October, the state filed its motion to dismiss, which was followed by CDIA’s response to that motion, and the state’s reply to CDIA’s response.

CDIA challenged S.B. 1037 (1999), a bill amending the Texas Fair Credit Reporting Act (“Texas FCRA”) to add Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 20.05(a)(5), which attempts to prohibit a CRA from preparing a consumer report containing information related to a medical collection account, specifically:

… [a] collection account with a medical industry code, if the consumer was covered by a health benefit plan at the time of the event giving rise to the collection and the collection is for an outstanding balance, after copayments, deductibles, and coinsurance, owed to an emergency care provider or a facility-based provider for an out-of-network  benefit claim…

Relevant documents:

  • Texas’ motion to dismiss (10/2/2019)
  • CDIA’s response to Texas’ motion to dismiss (10/16/2019)
  • Texas’ reply in support of its motion to dismiss (10/23/2019)
  • U.S. Magistrate Judge Susan Hightower’s Report and Recommendations to U.S. District Court Judge Robert Pittman (7/22/2020)
  • CDIA’s objections to Magistrate Judge Hightower’s Report and Recommendations (8/5/2020)
  • CDIA’s motion to file a first amended complaint, including CDIA’s first amended complaint (Ex. A) and the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendations (Ex. B.) (8/5/2020)
  • Texas’ response in opposition to CDIA’s objections to CDIA’s objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendations (8/20/2020)
  • Texas’ Unopposed Motion for Leave to File a Sur-Reply to CDIA’s objections to the Magistrate’s Report and Recommendations (9/10/2020)
  • Texas’ Sur-Reply to CDIA’s objections to the Magistrate’s Report and Recommendations.  This sur-reply was filed “to address two key problems with CDIA’s reply in support of its objections to the [Magistrate’s] report and recommendation: sovereign immunity and preemption.” (9/10/2020)
  • The U.S. District Court’s rejection of U.S. Magistrate Judge Susan Hightower’s Report and Recommendations, and his order allowing CDIA to file a first amended complaint (11/17/2020)
  • CDIA’s first amended complaint (11/17/2020)
  • Texas’ motion to dismiss CDIA’s first amended complaint (1/4/2021)