Welcome to the Research Assistant Weekly Newsletter - a subscriber-only resource for insight into emerging compliance challenges, details on peer calls, and links to new Research Assistant reports, documents, tools, and more.
One of our Research Assistant members asked our peer group how they are generally responding to combination dispute and cease communication notifications in light of the Denmon v. Kansas Counselors, Inc. decision. InsideARM wrote about this case last April, Sending Docs After the Validation Period Expires? One Court Says, No.
So what should companies do if they want to err on the side of caution when determining whether or not they should respond to a dispute? As we collectively discussed this the following trends became apparent:
-
If there is any language regarding a cease communication, then they do not respond to the dispute.
-
Regular disputes are still responded to regardless of whether they were received within the validation period.
What can companies do to minimize their risk? It all begins with training, this is a great time to evaluate your training materials for the employees that handle your disputes. Make sure they understand the importance of identifying the difference between; disputes, cease communications, complaints, and refusals to pay. Equally important is, regularly audit these individuals to ensure they are consistently identifying the disputes correctly, and responding appropriately.
With the rise of AI tools such as ChatGPT we can expect that these combination letters will continue to increase.
Documents and Crowdsourced Materials:
Top Reads:
Upcoming Webinars/ Other Announcements:
|
