A lot of questions are being raised about federal agencies driving around in unmarked vehicles and picking up protesters in Portland.
It's my experience that these agencies often try to push the envelope as to what the law actualy allows
I was involved in one of the first criminal cases where the Border Patrol claimed that any part of the US 100 miles from the water was a border and that they could set up a chekpoint and stop anyone who passed. And so checkpoints were set up across the Olympic Penninsula with tens of thousands of people stopped.
The top federal prosecutor in Seattle has overruled the Border Patrol, whose officers filed petty marijuana charges against five people stopped at roadblocks in Washington. The roadblocks -- set up dozens of miles from the border -- are meant to detect terrorists, undocumented immigrants and drug tr...
This Office Represents_____ who has an outstanding bill with --------Medical Center for about ____________related to care received _______
Pursuant to all applicable law including WAC 246-453 we are requesting Charity Care for __________ We ask that all collection efforts cease and that you consider applying any discount received retroactively to past payment.
As you are probably aware WAC 246-453-020 (1) states: “The initiation of collection efforts directed at the responsible party shall be precluded pending an initial determination of sponsorship status, provided that the responsible party is cooperative with the hospital's efforts to reach an initial determination of sponsorship status…” and (c) “…collection efforts directed at the responsible party will be precluded pending a final determination of that classification, provided that the responsible party is cooperative with the hospital's reasonable efforts to reach a final determination of sponsorship status….”
Additionally under WAC 246-453 (4) “Hospitals must make every reasonable effort to determine the existence or nonexistence of third-party sponsorship that might cover in full or in part the charges for services provided to each patient….”
Under WAC 246-453-040 (2) “All responsible parties with family income between one hundred one and two hundred percent of the federal poverty standard, adjusted for family size, shall be determined to be indigent persons qualifying for discounts from charges related to appropriate hospital-based medical services in accordance with the hospital's sliding fee schedule and policies regarding individual financial circumstances…” (Emphasis Added.)
As you are or should be aware if a patient was eligible for charity care and _______ did not offer it, it is potentially a violation of the Consumer Protection Act RC 19.86, specifically RCW 19.86.020 - unfair and deceptive acts and practices. Potential penalties under this section can be three times the amount at issue and all attorney fees. RCW 19.86.090.
Please provide copies of a current charity care application to our client both through our office and to her address at _____ ... See MoreSee Less
The COVID-19 patient, from West Seattle, has insurance and so isn't on the hook for the vast majority of the charge. But the gold-plated cost highlights one reason why...
“What brings the parties to this Court today are peaceful protesters desiring to engage in their rights guaranteed by the Constitution, the freedom of assembly without fear of retaliation or disruption by Seattle police officers’ use of tear gas, pepper spray, flash bang devices, or foam-tipped bullets,” the judge wrote. “Police cannot interfere with orderly, nonviolent protests because they disagree with the content of the speech.”
Martinez said the court was left to balance the First Amendment rights of the thousands of protesters who have crowded downtown streets and now settled in an “autonomous zone” around an abandoned police precinct on Capitol Hill against incidents “when violent offenders choose to disrupt constitutionally protected activity.”
Over the past two weeks, police and the crowds have clashed repeatedly and officers have used concussion grenades, rubber bullets, pepper spray, tear gas and other nonlethal crowd-control weapons to varying degrees of effect.
The order came in a lawsuit filed against the city and the police department by attorneys for the American Civil Liberties Union of Washington representing Black Lives Matter Seattle-King County and several individuals.