HAOLE

You are most likely right

The forms I use are written by John P Lowry Esq in Cincinnati. I try to be as careful as I can.

I allow about 3-4 charity cases per month. When you work for a hospital or a large group that pays you a paycheck it makes it easy to say that. The reality is I have overhead to pay. Charity does not pay it! When someone recieved the money to pay and spent it on a big screen it changes the game a little.

In 2003 I lost 25k in one year like this.

No... it gives me ownership of a protion of the claim to pay our bill. this is used when people don't have the money to pay for care upfront. For example they dont have medpay or health insurance.

This is a very common practice. Attorneys do the same thing.

It is called business, something you don't know anything about. Go flip a burger.

Can someone that is more informed on legal issues explain something to me. I had a personal injury patient that got care in our office subsequent to a motor vehicle accident. We had a signed assignment of benefits that gave me ownership of a portion of the settlement up to the amount of our total bill. The patient obtained settlement from Auto Owners insurance on the 10th of this month in the amount of 3,000.00. Once I found out about this I confronted him about this settlement and went to collect the money due to me, 1846.00. At first he said he did not get a check from Auto Owners, then he finally admitted it. And of course, he spent the money. Accoding to the ORC Personal services are defined as; I filed a report with the Mt. Vernon reporting theft of services. the prosecutor has declined to do anything about this. I talk to him on the phone for about 30 minutes yesterday and he could not give me a good reason he would not prosecute theft of service. He keep saying it is a civil case. I agree that there is civil issues to recover what I can, but the ORC seems clear to me that this should be considered theft. Can someone please explain to me why this would not be criminal too.

Being as smart as you think you are, I assumed you know that metrosexuals can be gay, straight or bi. They sound more like a bunch of closet sodomites to. Brutal honesty sometimes hurts. Man up and get some testosterone back.

Glad to hear he is ok now. That had to be a bad few minutes!!!!

:gtfo:

haha.. I own birkenstocks.

:funny:

I agree. He will have to live it out in solitary too, the Aryan Brotherhood wont let him serve out his sentence.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/oj_simpson

I would say par for the course

Talk about word salad...

Unlike you, I dont care what other people think of me. I am not that self absorbed to worry about what the "grand tilley" thinks of me. You can draw you own conclusions about what walking over the constitution means. There are enough example out there to keep you busy for awhile. I don't think there are many people that would disagree that morally our county is not what it was in the 1930's. Then we had men that were men, not metrosexual like you. By having strong men our country was a better place. Of course I will leave my opinion of cause of this degradation of manhood vague for you to draw your own conclusions.

A fine example of Johnnybravos weak brain. The post was meant to be vague. Your grandiose delusions are showing. Your problem is you think too much of yourself. Self esteem is good, but you take it too far. I was not implying you said those things I was being vague, all the while mocking you.

BTW... Today the supreme court is meeting to determine to hear Berg v. Obama. On top of Berg v. Obama there are another 15-20 case heading toward the supreme court regarding Obama's citizenship status.

What happened to "Change"?

I've always been a little confused by people that are willing to walk all over the constitution, degrade the moral values of the United States, and then wonder why we have so many problems here. The First Amendment in action, I suppose, but still a little hypocritical. I also have been a little confused by people that constantly criticized the Bush administration and refused to "come together" behind our current president, but now have changed their story and want us to come together behind Obama. The First Amendment in action, I suppose, but still a little hypocritical.