Plaintiff'S Class Action Complaint Case Summary

Case 4:17-cv-00006-ALM Document 1 Filed 01/03/17 Page 1 of 24 PageID #: 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SHERMAN DIVISION
DAVID ADKINSON, )
Individually and on behalf of all others )
similarly situated, )
)
Plaintiff )
)
v. ) No. 4:17-cv-00006
)
ADEPTUS HEALTH INC., )
ADEPTUS HEALTH LLC, )
ADEPTUS HEALTH COLORADO HOLDINGS LLC, )
and ADEPTUS HEALTH MANAGEMENT LLC, )
)
Defendants. )
PLAINTIFFS CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Case Summary
1. This case arises out of Defendant Adeptus Health Inc., Defendant Adeptus Health
LLC, Defendant Adeptus Health Colorado Holdings LLC, and Defendant Adeptus Health
Management LLCs (collectively Adeptus and d/b/a First Choice Emergency Room and/or
UCHealth Emergency Room) fraudulent and unconscionable failure to disclose Facilities Fees
to consumers before they are treated at Adeptuss so-called free-standing emergency rooms (the
FSERs).
2. When patients who are in need of medical treatment visit an Adeptus FSER, they
are not told in advance of receiving treatment that they will be charged a Facilities Fee.
3. Indeed, Adeptus actively conceals its billing practices from consumers until they
send the patients their bills.
1
4. It is only upon receiving their bills that consumers learn for the first time that
Adeptus charges a Facilities Fee, which can be as much as $6,000 or higher.
5. Adeptuss failure to disclose Facilities Fees to their trusting patients is fraudulent,
unconscionable, violates the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and has resulted in hundreds of
millions of dollars of unjust enrichment to Adeptus.
6. Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others in Texas and Colorado similarly
situated (Class Members), sues Adeptus to recover all Facilities Fees paid by Texas and
Colorado consumers from 2013 to the present and to enjoin Adeptus from continuing its deceptive
and fraudulent acts in the future.
Parties, Jurisdiction, and Venue
7. Plaintiff David Adkinson is a physician residing and domiciled in Colorado
Springs, CO. Dr. Adkinson is a citizen of Colorado.
8. Defendant Adeptus Health Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place
of business in Lewisville, Texas. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant Adeptus
Health Inc. because it has its principal place of business in Texas and is at home in the forum state.
Defendant Adeptus Health Inc. can be served through its registered agent The Corporation Trust
Company at Corporation Trust Center, 1209 Orange Street, Wilmington, DE 19801.
9. Defendant Adeptus Health LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with its
principal place of business in Lewisville, Texas. This Court has personal jurisdiction over
Defendant Adeptus Health LLC because it has its principal place of business in Texas and is at
home in the forum state. Defendant Adeptus Health LLC can be served through its registered
agent Timothy Fielding at 2941 Lake Vista Drive, Lewisville, TX 75067.
2
10. Defendant Adeptus Health Colorado Holdings LLC is a Texas limited liability
company with its principal place of business in Lewisville, Texas. This Court has personal
jurisdiction over Defendant Adeptus Health Colorado Holdings LLC because it has its principal
place of business in Texas and is at home in the forum state. Defendant Adeptus Health Colorado
Holdings LLC can be served through its registered agent Graham Cherrington at 2941 S. Lake
Vista Drive, Suite 200, Lewisville, TX 75067.
11. Defendant Adeptus Health Management LLC is a Texas limited liability company
with its principal place of business at 2941 Lake Vista Drive, Lewisville, TX 75067. This Court
has personal jurisdiction over Defendant Adeptus Health Management LLC because it has its
principal place of business in Texas and is at home in the forum state. Defendant Adeptus Health
Management LLC can be served through its registered agent Graham Cherrington at 2941 S. Lake
Vista Drive, Suite 200, Lewisville, TX 75067.
12. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
1332(d) because at least one Class Member is diverse from at least one defendant, the amount in
controversy exceeds $5,000,000, exclusive of interests and costs, and there are more than 100
Class Members.
13. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b)(1) because
Defendants reside in Lewisville, Texas which is in the Sherman Division of the Eastern District of
Texas.
Facts
FSERs Generally
14. Freestanding Emergency Medical Care Facilities (FSERs) are staffed by
emergency physicians and have laboratory and radiology equipment, including but not limited to
3
CT scanners, ultrasounds and x-ray machines. They are usually open 24 hours a day, 7 days a
week, and are equipped to handle most types of medical emergencies.
15. FSERs often do not accept Medicaid and are most often located in or adjacent to
affluent neighborhoods where the potential patient pool has quality insurance. Adeptus targets
patients who have policies with high deductibles, meaning that the patient is often left to pay most
or all of the Facilities Fees and other charges.
16. Urgent care centers, on the other hand, are set up to assist patients with non-life-
threatening illnesses at times during which their primary care physician is not available.
17. There are more than one thousand urgent care centers in the State of Texas. Urgent
care centers are appropriate for minor medical problems that could be treated in a primary care
physicians office. They are similar to after-hours doctor clinics but are not open 24 hours a day
and may not be staffed by physicians.
18. Urgent care centers bill similarly to doctors office visits, typically collecting an
office-visit co-pay from the patient and submitting the remainder of the bill to the patients health
insurance carrier.
19. FSERs and traditional urgent care centers appear to the consuming public to be
synonymous, and it is this perception upon which Adeptus preys.
20. Because of FSERs similar appearance to traditional urgent care centers, including
their signage and retail positioning, and their mass marketing via radio, billboards and direct mail,
consumers have become confused as to what, exactly, is the facility they are visiting, and which is
appropriate for what kind of care.
21. In 2009, Texas passed legislation authorizing FSERs, and the Texas Department of
State Health Services promulgated their governing regulations at 25 Texas Administrative Code
4
Section 131. Texas FSERs may be either hospital-owned, or owned by providers and/or investors,
are emergency-care facilities that are structurally separate and distinct from hospitals, and are
intended to receive patients for emergency care. 25 TEX. ADMIN. CODE 131.2(14).
22. Colorado FSERs also can be hospital owned and operated, independently owned
and/or hospital-affiliated, and are also regulated by state and federal law.1 See, e.g., 6 COLO. CODE
REGS. 1011-1, Chapter 9, Part 18.102(2).
The Adeptus Defendants
23. Seeking to take advantage of the consumers confusion between urgent care clinics
and FSERs, Adeptus owns and operates First Choice and UCHealth Emergency Rooms in
Texas and Colorado.
24. Plaintiff has named as Defendants herein: Adeptus Health Inc. d/b/a First Choice
Emergency Room, Adeptus Health LLC, Adeptus Health Colorado Holdings LLC, and Adeptus
Health Management LLC.
25. In 2013, Adeptus Health LLC was created as a holding company to own and operate
free standing emergency rooms in Texas marketed to consumers as First Choice Emergency
Rooms.
26. Adeptus Health Inc. was incorporated as a Delaware corporation on March 7, 2014
for the purpose of conducting an initial public offering, which was completed on June 30, 2014.
In connection with the initial public offering, Adeptus completed a reorganization, which among
other things, resulted in Adeptus Health Inc. becoming a holding company with its sole material
asset being a controlling equity interest in Adeptus Health LLC. As the sole managing member of
1
See generally https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/sites/default/files/Summary%20Overview%20-
%20Aug%202016.pdf
5
Adeptus Health LLC, Adeptus Health Inc. operates and controls all of the business and affairs of
Adeptus Health LLC. Adeptus Health Inc. owns 100% of the voting rights of Adeptus Health LLC,
and therefore has control over Adeptus Health LLC and all Adeptus FSERs.
27. In April 2015, University of Colorado Health, a Colorado nonprofit corporation
(UCH), and Adeptus Health Colorado Holdings LLC, a Texas limited liability company, formed
UCHealth Partners LLC, a Colorado limited liability company, for the purpose of developing,
owning and operating FSERs in the States of Colorado and Wyoming. UCH and Adeptus Health
Colorado Holdings LLC, both members of UCHealth Partners LLC, entered into an Operating
Agreement governing their rights and duties in the operation and management of the Colorado
FSERs.
28. Under the terms of the Operating Agreement, all notices, demands or requests to
Adeptus Health Colorado Holdings, LLC, are to be delivered to Adeptus Health Inc. in Lewisville,
Texas.
29. The Operating Agreement names another Adeptus entity, Adeptus Health
Management LLC, a Texas limited liability company, as Manager.
30. Also in April 2015, in conjunction with the Operating Agreement, UCHealth
Partners LLC and Adeptus Health Management LLC, a Texas limited liability company, entered
into a Management Services Agreement. The Management Services Agreement sets forth Adeptus
Health Management LLCs obligations as Manager of the Colorado facilities, including that
Adeptus Health Management LLC shall manage and supervise the day-to-day operations of the
facilities and implement all aspects of the operation of the Colorado FSERs.
31. Plaintiff has referred to these Adeptus entities collectively as Adeptus given their
joint and often indistinguishable operation of the companies FSERs in both Texas and Colorado.
6
32. As to consumers, all Adeptus entities act singularly under the same First Choice
or UCHealth name, and their complex corporate structure and relationships and agreements
regarding the internal operations of the FSERs are not generally known to the public.
Adeptuss First Choice and UCHealth FSERs
33. With the largest network of independent freestanding emergency rooms in the
United States, Adeptus has experienced rapid growth over the past few years.
34. In Texas, Adeptus FSERs grew from 14 facilities at the end of 2012 to 26 facilities
at the end of 2013, to 55 facilities as of December 31, 2014, 64 as of January 2016, and 75 as of
December 2016.
35. Adeptus facilities in Texas, all marketed under the First Choice Emergency
Room name, are currently located in the Houston, Dallas/Fort Worth, San Antonio and Austin,
Texas areas, and Adeptus is aggressively expanding its locations throughout Texas and elsewhere.
36. In 2014 or early 2015, Adeptus began opening facilities in Colorado under the
First Choice brand.
37. After Adeptus partnered with UCHealth in April 2015, all First Choice FSERs
facilities in Colorado were rebranded as UCHealth Emergency Rooms.
38. UCHealth FSERs, however, continue to be managed and controlled by Adeptus and
its affiliates.
39. First Choices website continues to advertise the UCHealth Denver and Colorado
Springs FSER locations along with the Texas locations (see www.fser.com/locations).
40. Defendant Adeptus Health Management LLC also manages and supervises the day-
to-day operations of the Colorado FSERs and is responsible for billing and collection services
under the terms of the Management Services Agreement with UCHealth. Adeptus Health
7
Management LLC is also responsible, as Manager, for implementing all aspects of the operation
of the Colorado FSERs, advising UCHealth on material aspects of the operation of the Colorado
FSERs, including regulatory and contractual requirements and marketing activities, and reviewing
the cost-effectiveness and quality of services rendered to patients.
41. There are now over 20 Adeptus FSERs in Colorado marketed under the UCHealth
name.
The Deceptive Business Model
42. Adeptuss business model is to trick patients into believing that its centers are
appropriate for non-emergent care for the purpose of extracting extravagant fees. Then, after the
patients are treated, they are sent a bill that includes a Facilities Feewhich can be as much as
$6,000 or more.
43. Adeptus engages in targeted marketing campaigns, including direct mail, radio,
television, outdoor advertising, digital and social media, by which Adeptus aims to increase patient
volumes by reaching a broad base of potential patients in order to increase brand awareness. In
none of these ads, however, does Adeptus explain that it charges Facilities Fees.
44. Adeptus even has a dedicated field marketing team that works to increase the
volume of patients seeking care at its facilities. This dedicated field marketing team targets
specific audiences by attending local chamber of commerce meetings, meeting with primary care
physicians and visiting with school nurses and athletic directors, in order to increase patient
volumes within a facilitys local community.
45. What Adeptus does not tell its patients before they are treated is that each and every
one will be charged a costly Facilities Fee.
8
46. In fact, rather than advise consumers of the increased cost, Adeptuss website touts
of The First Choice Emergency Room advantage, noting the advantages of their FSERs when
compared to hospital emergency rooms and urgent care clinics without disclosing the dramatically
increased cost (see www.fcer.com/about-us/our-mission).
47. Traditionally, Facilities Fees have been charged by hospital emergency rooms to
help recoup the cost of operating the hospital ER, including 24 hour staffing and special equipment,
and to cover the overhead of being prepared to handle any situation that presents (natural disaster,
terrorist attack, ambulance diversion, etc.), offset losses incurred in treating Medicaid populations,
and to subsidize charity care/sliding fee scales serving the poor and indigent.
48. Facilities Fees have been reported to be $6,000 or more.
49. Urgent care centers do not charge Facilities Fees.
50. Doctors offices do not charge Facilities Fees.
51. Adeptus, however, charges every single patientemergency or notastronomical
Facilities Fees.
52. As a matter of pattern and practice, Adeptus preys on patients that more
appropriately should be treated at an urgent care center or at their doctors office. Adeptus targets
non-emergent patients to be treated at their facilities for one simple reason: money.
53. As a result of the undisclosed Facilities Fees, FSERs can cost up to ten times the
cost of a comparable visit to an urgent care center an often costs significantly more to the consumer
in out-of-pocket expenses than a traditional emergency room attached to a hospital.
54. In fact, in an effort to continue to conceal the nature of FSERs fraudulent practices,
in the spring of 2015, the Texas Association of Free Standing Emergency Centers lobbied the
9
Texas Legislature not to pass a law that would require FSERs to post notice that they charge
Facilities Fees to patients.
55. Similarly, legislation prohibiting FSERs from charging Facilities Fees was
proposed in Colorado in 2014, but never voted on.
Adeptuss Duty to Disclose
56. According to the Patient Rights section of the Texas Administrative Code
governing FSERs in Texas, information shall be available to patients and staff concerning fees
for services provided; and marketing or advertising regarding competence or capabilities of the
organization shall not be misleading to patients. 25 TEX. ADMIN. CODE 131.59(f)(5),(g).
57. Similarly, in Colorado, hospitals and other healthcare facilities have a duty to
provide the average charge to a consumer in a non-emergent situation. Under the provisions
governing disclosures to consumers, all hospitals and health-care facilities are required to disclose
to a person seeking care or treatment his or her right to receive notice of the average facility charge
for such treatment that is a frequently performed inpatient procedure prior to admission for such
procedure; except that care or treatment for an emergency need not be disclosed prior to such
emergency care or treatment. When requested, the average charge information shall be made
available to the person prior to admission for such procedure. COLO. REV. STAT. 6-20-101.
58. According to the Board of Directors of the Colorado Chapter of the American
College of Emergency Physicians, for consumer protection and transparency, an FSER should
have clear signagethat billing includes professional and facility fees comparable to a hospital
based emergency department.
10
59. In its Texas and Colorado facilities, Adeptus, however, fails to make information
available to patients concerning the Facilities Fees they will be charged for services provided and
to make clear that their billing includes Facility Fees.
60. In fact, nowhere in Adeptuss patient intake formsincluding the Financial
Responsibility and Acknowledgement Form, the Patient Profile Form, and the Consent for
Treatment Formare the Facilities Fees disclosed.
61. A review of online complaints filed with the Better Business Bureau confirms that
the fraudulent practices, including undisclosed and exorbitant Facilities Fees are common to the
class:
They do not disclose how much their services cost. Had I been told how expensive it
would be, I would have chosen to go elsewhere. The amount they charged for what they
did is outrageous. I asked how much it would be before I was seen by the doctor and they
couldn't tell me. I was shocked when I got the bill and asked for an explanation, like how
much they charge an hour. They said they charge emergency prices, but were non-
specific about their pricing structure. If they are going to charge emergency prices, they
should not treat non-emergencies, they should warn the consumer about their prices, or
both. So not only did they not disclose how much their services are beforehand, they also
did not set up a payment agreement until after their services are rendered, which puts the
consumer in a bad position. Plus, the price they charge is not commensurate with the
service I received. It is outrageous. I suspect that's why they don't disclose it to begin
with. If consumers were aware of their prices, fewer clients would walk through their
doors. Consumers have a right to know pricing before purchase.
This business presents itself in a misleading a deceptive way as it appears similar to an

urgent care facility yet charges as a hospital E.R. At no time did anyone at First Choice
make it clear that this was not urgent care, but emergency room care, and would be billed
at a significantly higher rate that many insurance companies (Cigna) would not cover.
First Choice presents itself as an urgent care facility, located next to fast food restaurants
and gas stations, without an ambulatory entrance or hospital anywhere in sight which the
public associates with an emergency room.
I consider First Choice's business practices to be fraudulent and misleading and the
inflated charges are completing without merit. When a person walks into an emergency
they know it will be more expensive than a traditional doctor visit. But, clearly the person
is in severe enough pain that they willingly walk in the door and ask for care. Which
apparently is why First Choice thinks they can take advantage of people in a vulnerable
position. If I had been told upfront by First Choice when I walked in on 2/28/14 that I
11
was being rated a "Level 4" and would be charged a $1,594 facility fee then I would have
turned around and walked out. This is basically a cover charge to get in the door and if
they do any tests then your meter starts running. First Choice claims they can't possibly
tell you upfront how much the visit will cost, even though they know full well about the
$1,500 facility charge they will be handing you. If they had mentioned the $1,500 facility
fee to me I never would have stayed. I am on a high deductible insurance plan and am
very aware that I am responsible for the majority of the charges I incur when I seek
medical attention. I guess I was naive in thinking that I could get good care at a fair price.
If First Choice thinks those prices are fair, they should at least have to disclose them to
the patients before they decide if they want to be treated.
I was not informed of the charges prior to service and did not authorize any of the
charges. I feel the charges are excessive and unauthorized. First Choice never informed
me of any charges that I would be responsible for at any time before or during my visit.
Facility charge. This was never disclosed prior to treatment

Ridiculous charges.
Deceptive Business Practice of not pointing out to customers that they are just for
emergency services ONLY when customer accidently comes in. My husband made a
visit, and then my daughter, for cold related symptoms. As we were going out of town for
Christmas we wanted to be sure we were treated before we left in case it got worse while
we were on the road. Neither time did the desk person or nurse or doctor let us know that
we had mistakenly come to a place that just did emergencies. We CLEARLY were not an
EMERGENCY. As this is a fairly new concept to the area we mistakenly went here to be
treated for non-emergency ailments. When we got the bill my stomach just dropped as I
was very upset to see how much it was. I have never been so upset with a business before
and felt like I was taken advantage of. Each visit was charged a facility charge of $1594
as well as doctor's fees over $400.
All of that came crashing down when we received a bill for $1,291.40 that we were to
pay out of pocket. We thought it was a mistake so we called our insurance company first.
They informed us it wasn't a mistake b/c this facility was out of our network. My wife
called FC only to be informed that we were indeed on the hook for this amount. At no
point did the person who took our insurance card or our co-pay decide it would be
worthwhile to mention they would be charging us $900 for a "facility fee" because they're
technically an emergency room. It would have taken 30 seconds to make us aware of that
and we would have hopped into the car and gone to any one of about 15 other urgent care
facilities within 10 miles that would have been covered by our insurance and aren't
emergency rooms.
This facility does not make you aware of outrageous facility charges that are more than
insurance approves prior to being seen. My two children and I went to First Choice ER in
Colleyville on January 1, 2014 due to high temperature and flu like symptoms. We were
seen almost immediately and did not receive any communication about facility fees or
prices being so high that insurance would not cover a majority of the visit. I paid my
12
$300 co pay ($100 each) and left with nothing but confirmation that we did not have flu.
On Wednesday, 3/5/2014 I received an invoice via email for $1064.34 for services not
covered by insurance. I contacted Blue Cross Blue Shield and they explained that the
charges are inflated and they can only cover what the charges should be based on the
coding. Please understand that my children and I were placed in the same room and were
seen at the same time. My biggest complaint is the fact that we are charged 3 facility fees.
$628 for one child who laid on the treatment bed, $628 for one child that sat in my lap
and $940 for me that sat in a plastic chair. We occupied 1 room for less than 30 minutes.
I paid my $300 co-pay and had no idea that I was going to be hit with such large fees
afterwards. While I did sign that I would be responsible for any charges not covered by
insurance, I had no idea that would include $2196 in facility charges prior to insurance.
After insurance, I am left with $1064.34 which is mostly facility fees. I have contacted
First Choice and they explained that the fees are much higher because they are an
emergency room facility.2
62. Adeptus has continued those fraudulent and unconscionable practices in Colorado,
and similar online complaints have been filed by Colorado patients regarding the deceptive billing
and business practices.3
63. In fact, in November 2015, the NBC news affiliate in Denver ran a story entitled
Buyer beware: freestanding emergency rooms. In that piece, it was revealed that one patient
was charged a Facilities Fee of $6,237for complaining of shortness of breath. That news story
led to a precipitous drop in Adeptuss stock price and a slew of securities class actions based upon
Adeptus predatory billing practices.
64. Adeptus has collected hundreds of millions of dollars in Facilities Fees during the
Class Period.
2
See generally https://www.bbb.org/dallas/business-reviews/emergency-rooms/adeptus-health-in-
lewisville-tx-90025265/reviews-and-complaints.
3
See, e.g., https://www.bbb.org/dallas/business-reviews/emergency-rooms/uchealth-emergency-room-in-
arvada-co-90538459/reviews-and-complaints;https://www.bbb.org/dallas/business-reviews/emergency-
rooms/uchealth-emergency-room-in-thornton-co-90558582/reviews-and-complaints;
https://www.bbb.org/dallas/business-reviews/emergency-rooms/uchealth-emergency-room-in-littleton-co-
90558589/reviews-and-complaints
13
Plaintiff and Class Representative Dr. David Adkinsons Experience
65. In February 2016, Plaintiff David Adkinson fell while shoveling snow. Dr.
Adkinson, who is a veteran and psychiatrist practicing in Colorado, had difficulty flexing his hip,
so he visited the Adeptus/UCHealth location in Colorado Springs (North Location/Meadowgrass
Dr.).
66. At the time of his visit, Dr. Adkinson was not aware that the fees charged by
Adeptus would be substantively different, not to mention significantly higher, than the fees
charged by a nearby urgent care facility.
67. Dr. Adkinson had a roughly five-minute encounter with the provider at the FSER, including
a minimal physical examination. After an x-ray, Dr. Adkinsons was diagnosed with a thigh
contusion.
68. A few months later, Dr. Adkinson received a bill for over $2,000, over $1,200 of
which was the Facilities Fee.
69. The Facilities Fee was not disclosed to him when he was being treated at the
Colorado FSER.
70. Ultimately, Adeptus charged Dr. Adkinson more than $2,000 for a five-minute
examination and a diagnosis of a bruise.
71. Dr. Adkinsons experience is illustrative and typical of Adeptuss common,
widespread and classwide deceptive business practices.
Class Allegations
72. Pursuant to FRCP 23(b)(2) and (b)(3), Plaintiff brings this action on his own behalf
and on behalf of proposed classes of all other similarly situated persons in Colorado and Texas
consisting, respectively, of:
14
All persons in Texas and Colorado that were charged a Facilities Fee
for visiting a First Choice-branded or UCHealth-branded
freestanding emergency room in the four years preceding the filing
of this Petition (the Class Period).
73. Excluded from the Classes are: (a) federal, state, and/or local governments,
including, but not limited to, their departments, agencies, divisions, bureaus, boards, sections,
groups, counsels, and/or subdivisions; (b) any entity in which any Defendant has a controlling
interest, to include, but not limited to, their legal representative, heirs, and successors; (c) all
persons who are presently in bankruptcy proceedings or who obtained a bankruptcy discharge in
the last three years; and (d) any judicial officer in the lawsuit and/or persons within the third degree
of consanguinity to such judge.
74. Upon information and belief, the Class consists of thousands of consumers.
Accordingly, it would be impracticable to join all Class Members before the Court.
75. There are numerous and substantial questions of law or fact common to all of the
members of the Class and which predominate over any individual issues. Included within the
common question of law or fact to be shown through common evidence are:
a. Whether Adeptus had a duty to disclose the Facilities Fees;
b. Whether Adeptus failed to disclose the Facilities Fees;
c. Whether this omission was part of Adeptuss uniform policies and/or customary
pattern and practices;
d. Whether Adeptus intended to induce Plaintiff and Class Members to pay the
Facilities Fees;
e. Whether Adeptus engaged in unconscionable actions;
f. Whether Adeptus was unjustly enriched by the collection of Facilities Fees; and
15
g. The proper measure and amount of damages sustained by Plaintiff and Class
Members.
76. The claims of the Plaintiff are typical of the claims of Class Members, in that they
share the above-referenced facts and legal claims or questions with Class Members, there is a
sufficient relationship between the damage to Plaintiff and Defendants conduct affecting Class
Members, and Plaintiff has no interests adverse to the interests other Class Members.
77. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of Class Members and has
retained counsel experienced and competent in the prosecution of complex class actions.
78. Adeptus has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class,
thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief with respect
to the Class as a whole.
79. The questions of law and fact common to the members of the Class predominate
over any questions affecting only individual members, if any.
80. Adeptuss failure to disclose Facilities Fees will be shown through common
evidence.
81. A class action is superior to other methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of
this controversy because (i) there has been no interest shown of members of the class in
individually controlling the prosecution of separate actions; (2) Plaintiff is aware of no other
litigation concerning the controversy already commenced by any member of the class; (3) it is
desirable to concentrate the litigation in this forum, which is familiar to both Plaintiff and
Defendants; and (4) there are no difficulties likely to be encountered in the management of this
class action.
16
Causes Of Action
Count One Fraud by NonDisclosure
82. Plaintiff incorporates all preceding paragraphs as if fully set out herein.
83. Adeptus failed to disclose to Plaintiff and Class Members in advance of treating
them that they would be charged a Facilities Fee.
84. In both Texas and Colorado, Adeptus had a statutory duty to disclose to Plaintiff
and Class Members that it would charge Plaintiff and Class Members a Facilities Fee. See 25 TEX.
ADMIN. CODE 131.59(f)(5),(g); COLO. REV. STAT. 6-20-101.
85. Adeptus, however, failed and fails to make information available to patients
concerning the Facilities Fees they will be charged for services provided.
86. Adeptus also had a common-law duty to disclose Facilities Fees to its patients
because it has a special relationship with the patients requiring disclosure, because Adeptus creates
a false impression by making partial disclosures about its fees for services, and because Adeptus
voluntarily discloses some but not all information about its fees and therefore had a duty to disclose
the whole truth.
87. Moreover, the Facilities Fees were basic to the transaction between Plaintiff/Class
Members and Adeptus. Adeptus knew that Plaintiff and Class Members were about to enter into
transactions with Adeptus under a mistake as to the Facilities Fees, and that Plaintiff/Class
Members, because of the relationship between them and Adeptus and the customs of the trade or
other objective circumstances, would reasonably expect disclosure of the Facilities Fees.
88. The fact that Adeptus charges Facilities Fees is material. Any reasonable person
would want to know in advance that they were going to be charged as much as $6,000 or more for
the Facilities Fees associated with a visit to a FSER even if the condition was determined to be
17
non-emergent. Armed with that knowledge, potential patients could choose to incur the fee or to
seek alternative treatment at their doctors office or an urgent care center that does not charge
Facilities Fees. Without the full disclosure of that information by Adeptus, Adeptus customers are
in fact left with no choice.
89. Adeptus knew and knows that consumers including Plaintiff and Class Members
are ignorant of their billing practices and, absent disclosure of the Facilities Fees up-front, Plaintiff
and Class Members did and do not have an equal opportunity to discover the true facts. This is
particularly true when a patient believes (wrongly or not) that they need emergency care and do
not have time or resources to research their treatment options and their associated costs.
90. Adeptus knew it was concealing the Facilities Fees and was deliberately silent when
it had a duty to disclose the Facilities Fees to Plaintiff and Class Members.
91. By failing to disclose the Facilities Fees to Plaintiff and Class Members, Adeptus
intended to induce Plaintiff and Class Members to receive treatment at its facilities and incur the
Facilities Fees.
92. There is a reasonable and common class-wide inference of reliance due to
Adeptuss nondisclosure of information which it was statutorily obligated to disclose. Plaintiff
and Class Members relied on Adeptuss omission by receiving treatment without knowledge of
the Facilities Fees and unknowingly incurring those Fees. The failure to disclose Facilities Fees
is part of a common policy and uniform practice of all Adeptus FSERs and will be shown through
common evidence. No rational consumer would seek treatment at the FSER for non-emergent
conditions had the exorbitant Facilities Fees been disclosed.
18
93. Had Plaintiff and Class Members known in advance that they would be charged
astronomical Facilities Fees which they would not be charged elsewhere, they would have sought
the same treatment elsewhere.
94. As a proximate result of receiving treatment without the knowledge of the
undisclosed Facilities Fees, Plaintiff and Class Members were damaged, including out of pocket
damages, when they were forced to pay some or all of the undisclosed Facilities Fees upon
receiving their bill from Adeptus. Moreover, because the payments of the Facilities Fees were
made as a result of Adeptuss fraud, coercion, and/or duress, they were not paid voluntarily.
95. Because Adeptuss nondisclosure was fraudulent, Plaintiff and Class Members are
also entitled to exemplary damages.
96. Plaintiff and Class Members also request injunctive relief requiring Adeptus to
disclose Facilities Fees to all patients before they receive treatment.
Count Two Deceptive Trade Practices
98. The Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA) prohibits false, misleading, or
deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce and any unconscionable action
or course of action. TEX. BUS. & COM. CODE 17.46 et. seq.
99. Section (24) of 17.46 provides that false, misleading, or deceptive acts or
practices includes failing to disclose information concerning goods or services which was known
at the time of the transaction if such failure to disclose such information was intended to induce
the consumer into a transaction into which the consumer would not have entered had the
information been disclosed. TEX. BUS. & COM. CODE 17.46(24).
19
100. Plaintiff and Class Members are consumers within the meaning of the DTPA that
sought and acquired by purchase services from Adeptuss FSERs.
101. Adeptus violated section (24) of 17.46 by failing to disclose to Plaintiff and Class
Members that it would charge a Facilities Fee.
102. At the time Plaintiff and Class Members transacted business with and received
services from Adeptus, Adeptus knew that it would charge Plaintiff and Class Members Facilities
Fees that was disproportionate to the actual cost of the medical evaluation and treatment rendered.
103. Adeptuss failure to disclose the Facilities Fees was intended to induce Plaintiff and
Class Members to enter into a transaction with and receive services from Adeptus.
104. Plaintiff and Class Members would not have entered into any transaction with nor
received services from Adeptuss First Choice and UCHealth FSERs if the Facilities Fees had
been disclosed.
105. There is a reasonable and common class-wide inference of reliance due to
Adeptuss nondisclosure of information which it was statutorily obligated to disclose. The failure
to disclose Facilities Fees is part of a common policy and uniform practice of all Adeptus FSERs
and will be shown through common evidence. No rational consumer would seek treatment at the
FSER for non-emergent conditions had the exorbitant Facilities Fees been disclosed.
106. Had Plaintiff and Class Members known in advance that they would be charged
astronomical Facilities Fees which they would not be charged elsewhere, they would have sought
the same treatment elsewhere.
107. Adeptus also violated section 17.50(a)(3) because charging Plaintiff and Class
Members hundreds of millions of dollars in undisclosed Facilities Fees is an unconscionable action
and course of action. By charging the undisclosed Facilities Fees in connection with Plaintiffs
20
and Class Members transactions with Adeptus, Adeptus took and takes advantage of Plaintiffs
and Class Members lack of knowledge, ability, experience and/or capacity to a grossly unfair
degree. Because the Facilities Fees are wholly undisclosed, Plaintiffs and Class Members
knowledge, ability, experience, and capacity are the samethey have no idea that they are about
to be charged thousands of dollars in undisclosed fees. Moreover, the unfairness resulting from
Adeptus unconscionable acts is glaringly noticeable, flagrant, complete, and unmitigated.
108. Adeptuss failure to disclose the Facilities Fees and its unconscionable course of
action were a producing cause of Plaintiffs and Class Members damages, including economic,
out of pocket damages. Moreover, because the payments of the Facilities Fees were made as a
result of Adeptuss fraud, coercion, and/or duress, they were not paid voluntarily.
109. Adeptus acted knowingly or intentionally in failing to disclose the Facilities Fees.
Adeptus charges every single consumer Facilities Fees and knew it would do so to Plaintiff and
Class Members, but failed to disclose this to Plaintiff and Class Members. Adeptus thus acted
with actual awareness of the falsity of its non-disclosure and with the specific intent that Plaintiff
and Class Members would act in detrimental reliance on the non-disclosure. Plaintiff and Class
Members are therefore entitled to three times their economic damages.
110. Because Adeptuss violation of the DTPA as set out herein was a producing cause
of damages to a class of consumers, Adeptus should be enjoined from charging Facilities Fees
without adequate, up-front and unambiguous disclosure and should be ordered to restore to
Plaintiff and Class Members all money acquired in violation of the DTPA.
111. Giving 60 days written notice of this claim is rendered impractical by reason of
the necessity of filing suit in order to prevent the expiration of the statute of limitations for absent
21
Class Members. With every day that goes by, the claims of Class Members victimized by Adeptus
wrongdoing expire.
112. Plaintiff will provide a copy of this Complaint to the consumer protection division
as required by 17.501.
Count Three Money Had and Received/Unjust Enrichment
114. As a result of its collection of Facilities Fees from Plaintiff and Class Members,
Adeptus obtained and holds money that in equity and good conscience belongs to Plaintiff and
Class Members.
115. By accepting payment of the undisclosed Facilities Fees, Adeptus received a benefit
to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars.
116. The benefit of the Facilities Fees was received by Adeptus at Plaintiffs and Class
Members expense because Plaintiff and Class Members were forced to pay them despite the fact
that they were undisclosed to Plaintiff and Class Members prior to receiving medical care at
Adeptuss FSERs. Moreover, because the payments of the Facilities Fees were made as a result
of Adeptuss fraud, coercion, and/or duress, they were not paid voluntarily.
117. It would be unjust for Adeptus to retain the benefit of the Facilities Fees because
they were secured by fraud.
118. As a result of Adeptuss unjust enrichment, Plaintiff and the class are entitled to
recover as actual damages, and Adeptus should be ordered to disgorge, all Facilities Fees received
by Adeptus.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
119. Plaintiff demands trial by jury as to all issues so triable as a matter of right.
22
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff and the Class request the following relief and that the Court:
a. Grant certification of this case as a class action;
b. Appoint Plaintiff as Class Representative and Plaintiffs counsel as Class Counsel;
c. Award compensatory damages to Plaintiffs and the proposed Class, or,
alternatively, require Defendants to disgorge or pay restitution of its ill-gotten gains;
d. Issue an injunction preventing Defendants from continuing their fraudulent and
deceptive practices;
e. Award pre- and post-judgment interest;
e. Award reasonable and necessary attorneys fees and costs;
f. Award punitive damages; and
g. For all such other and further relief as may be just and proper.
Respectfully submitted this 3rd day of January 2017.
STECKLER GRESHAM COCHRAN PLLC

By: /s/ Stuart L. Cochran
Stuart L. Cochran
Texas Bar No. 24027936
stuart@stecklerlaw.com
L. Kirstine Rogers
krogers@stecklerlaw.com
Bruce W. Steckler
bruce@stecklerlaw.com
R. Dean Gresham
dean@stecklerlaw.com
12720 Hillcrest Rd., Ste. 1045

Dallas, TX 75230
23
(P) 972.387.4040
(F) 972.387.4041
Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Putative Class
24
JS 44 (Rev. 12/12)
Case 4:17-cv-00006-ALM Document 1-1 Filed 01/03/17 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 25
CIVIL COVER SHEET
The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as
provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the
purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)
I. (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS

David Adkinson Adeptus Health Inc., Adeptus Health LLC, Adeptus Health Colorado
Holdings, LLC, and Adeptus Health Management LLC
(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff Colorado Springs, CO County of Residence of First Listed Defendant Denton, TX
(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)
NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF
THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.
(c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) Attorneys (If Known)
Steckler Gresham Cochran PLLC P: (972) 387-4040
12720 Hillcrest Road, Suite 1045 F: (972) 387-4041
Dallas, TX 75230
II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an X in One Box Only) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an X in One Box for Plaintiff
(For Diversity Cases Only) and One Box for Defendant)
1 U.S. Government 3 Federal Question PTF DEF PTF DEF
Plaintiff (U.S. Government Not a Party) Citizen of This State 1 1 Incorporated or Principal Place 4 4
of Business In This State
2 U.S. Government 4 Diversity Citizen of Another State 2 2 Incorporated and Principal Place 5 5
Defendant (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III) of Business In Another State
Citizen or Subject of a 3 3 Foreign Nation 6 6

Foreign Country
IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an X in One Box Only)
CONTRACT TORTS FORFEITURE/PENALTY BANKRUPTCY OTHER STATUTES
110 Insurance PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY 625 Drug Related Seizure 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 375 False Claims Act
120 Marine 310 Airplane 365 Personal Injury - of Property 21 USC 881 423 Withdrawal 400 State Reapportionment
130 Miller Act 315 Airplane Product Product Liability 690 Other 28 USC 157 410 Antitrust
140 Negotiable Instrument Liability 367 Health Care/ 430 Banks and Banking
150 Recovery of Overpayment 320 Assault, Libel & Pharmaceutical PROPERTY RIGHTS 450 Commerce
& Enforcement of Judgment Slander Personal Injury 820 Copyrights 460 Deportation
151 Medicare Act 330 Federal Employers Product Liability 830 Patent 470 Racketeer Influenced and
152 Recovery of Defaulted Liability 368 Asbestos Personal 840 Trademark Corrupt Organizations
Student Loans 340 Marine Injury Product 480 Consumer Credit
(Excludes Veterans) 345 Marine Product Liability LABOR SOCIAL SECURITY 490 Cable/Sat TV
153 Recovery of Overpayment Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY 710 Fair Labor Standards 861 HIA (1395ff) 850 Securities/Commodities/
of Veterans Benefits 350 Motor Vehicle 370 Other Fraud Act 862 Black Lung (923) Exchange
160 Stockholders Suits 355 Motor Vehicle 371 Truth in Lending 720 Labor/Management 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) 890 Other Statutory Actions
190 Other Contract Product Liability 380 Other Personal Relations 864 SSID Title XVI 891 Agricultural Acts
195 Contract Product Liability 360 Other Personal Property Damage 740 Railway Labor Act 865 RSI (405(g)) 893 Environmental Matters
196 Franchise Injury 385 Property Damage 751 Family and Medical 895 Freedom of Information
362 Personal Injury - Product Liability Leave Act Act
Medical Malpractice 790 Other Labor Litigation 896 Arbitration
REAL PROPERTY CIVIL RIGHTS PRISONER PETITIONS 791 Employee Retirement FEDERAL TAX SUITS 899 Administrative Procedure
210 Land Condemnation 440 Other Civil Rights Habeas Corpus: Income Security Act 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff Act/Review or Appeal of
220 Foreclosure 441 Voting 463 Alien Detainee or Defendant) Agency Decision
230 Rent Lease & Ejectment 442 Employment 510 Motions to Vacate 871 IRSThird Party 950 Constitutionality of
240 Torts to Land 443 Housing/ Sentence 26 USC 7609 State Statutes
245 Tort Product Liability Accommodations 530 General
290 All Other Real Property 445 Amer. w/Disabilities - 535 Death Penalty IMMIGRATION
Employment Other: 462 Naturalization Application
446 Amer. w/Disabilities - 540 Mandamus & Other 465 Other Immigration
Other 550 Civil Rights Actions
448 Education 555 Prison Condition
560 Civil Detainee -
Conditions of
Confinement
V. ORIGIN (Place an X in One Box Only)
1 Original 2 Removed from 3 Remanded from 4 Reinstated or 5 Transferred from 6 Multidistrict
Proceeding State Court Appellate Court Reopened Another District Litigation
(specify)
Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):
28 U.S.C. 1332(d)
VI. CAUSE OF ACTION Brief description of cause:
Failure to disclose fees to consumers.
VII. REQUESTED IN CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION DEMAND $ CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:
COMPLAINT: UNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv.P. JURY DEMAND: Yes No
VIII. RELATED CASE(S)
(See instructions):
IF ANY JUDGE DOCKET NUMBER
DATE SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD
01/03/2017 /s/ Stuart L. Cochran
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
RECEIPT # AMOUNT APPLYING IFP JUDGE MAG. JUDGE

Case 4:17-cv-00006-ALM Document 1-1 Filed 01/03/17 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 26
JS 44 Reverse (Rev. 12/12)
INSTRUCTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET FORM JS 44

Authority For Civil Cover Sheet
The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filings and service of pleading or other papers as
required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is
required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. Consequently, a civil cover sheet is submitted to the Clerk of
Court for each civil complaint filed. The attorney filing a case should complete the form as follows:
I.(a) Plaintiffs-Defendants. Enter names (last, first, middle initial) of plaintiff and defendant. If the plaintiff or defendant is a government agency, use
only the full name or standard abbreviations. If the plaintiff or defendant is an official within a government agency, identify first the agency and
then the official, giving both name and title.
(b) County of Residence. For each civil case filed, except U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county where the first listed plaintiff resides at the
time of filing. In U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county in which the first listed defendant resides at the time of filing. (NOTE: In land
condemnation cases, the county of residence of the "defendant" is the location of the tract of land involved.)
(c) Attorneys. Enter the firm name, address, telephone number, and attorney of record. If there are several attorneys, list them on an attachment, noting
in this section "(see attachment)".
II. Jurisdiction. The basis of jurisdiction is set forth under Rule 8(a), F.R.Cv.P., which requires that jurisdictions be shown in pleadings. Place an "X"
in one of the boxes. If there is more than one basis of jurisdiction, precedence is given in the order shown below.
United States plaintiff. (1) Jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C. 1345 and 1348. Suits by agencies and officers of the United States are included here.
United States defendant. (2) When the plaintiff is suing the United States, its officers or agencies, place an "X" in this box.
Federal question. (3) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1331, where jurisdiction arises under the Constitution of the United States, an amendment
to the Constitution, an act of Congress or a treaty of the United States. In cases where the U.S. is a party, the U.S. plaintiff or defendant code takes
precedence, and box 1 or 2 should be marked.
Diversity of citizenship. (4) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1332, where parties are citizens of different states. When Box 4 is checked, the
citizenship of the different parties must be checked. (See Section III below; NOTE: federal question actions take precedence over diversity
cases.)
III. Residence (citizenship) of Principal Parties. This section of the JS 44 is to be completed if diversity of citizenship was indicated above. Mark this
section for each principal party.
IV. Nature of Suit. Place an "X" in the appropriate box. If the nature of suit cannot be determined, be sure the cause of action, in Section VI below, is
sufficient to enable the deputy clerk or the statistical clerk(s) in the Administrative Office to determine the nature of suit. If the cause fits more than
one nature of suit, select the most definitive.
V. Origin. Place an "X" in one of the six boxes.

Original Proceedings. (1) Cases which originate in the United States district courts.
Removed from State Court. (2) Proceedings initiated in state courts may be removed to the district courts under Title 28 U.S.C., Section 1441.
When the petition for removal is granted, check this box.
Remanded from Appellate Court. (3) Check this box for cases remanded to the district court for further action. Use the date of remand as the filing
date.
Reinstated or Reopened. (4) Check this box for cases reinstated or reopened in the district court. Use the reopening date as the filing date.
Transferred from Another District. (5) For cases transferred under Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a). Do not use this for within district transfers or
multidistrict litigation transfers.
Multidistrict Litigation. (6) Check this box when a multidistrict case is transferred into the district under authority of Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1407.
When this box is checked, do not check (5) above.
VI. Cause of Action. Report the civil statute directly related to the cause of action and give a brief description of the cause. Do not cite jurisdictional
statutes unless diversity. Example: U.S. Civil Statute: 47 USC 553 Brief Description: Unauthorized reception of cable service
VII. Requested in Complaint. Class Action. Place an "X" in this box if you are filing a class action under Rule 23, F.R.Cv.P.
Demand. In this space enter the actual dollar amount being demanded or indicate other demand, such as a preliminary injunction.
Jury Demand. Check the appropriate box to indicate whether or not a jury is being demanded.
VIII. Related Cases. This section of the JS 44 is used to reference related pending cases, if any. If there are related pending cases, insert the docket
numbers and the corresponding judge names for such cases.
Date and Attorney Signature. Date and sign the civil cover sheet.

Plaintiff'S Class Action Complaint Case Summary

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Plaintiff'S Class Action Complaint Case Summary

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Case 4:17-cv-00006-ALM Document 1 Filed 01/03/17 Page 1 of 24 PageID #: 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

PLAINTIFFS CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

send the patients their bills.

Adeptus charges a Facilities Fee, which can be as much as $6,000 or higher.

5. Adeptuss failure to disclose Facilities Fees to their trusting patients is fraudulent,

millions of dollars of unjust enrichment to Adeptus.

and fraudulent acts in the future.

Parties, Jurisdiction, and Venue

7. Plaintiff David Adkinson is a physician residing and domiciled in Colorado

Springs, CO. Dr. Adkinson is a citizen of Colorado.

Company at Corporation Trust Center, 1209 Orange Street, Wilmington, DE 19801.

agent Timothy Fielding at 2941 Lake Vista Drive, Lewisville, TX 75067.

Vista Drive, Suite 200, Lewisville, TX 75067.

Vista Drive, Suite 200, Lewisville, TX 75067.

13. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b)(1) because

14. Freestanding Emergency Medical Care Facilities (FSERs) are staffed by

week, and are equipped to handle most types of medical emergencies.

or all of the Facilities Fees and other charges.

and may not be staffed by physicians.

synonymous, and it is this perception upon which Adeptus preys.

appropriate for what kind of care.

REGS. 1011-1, Chapter 9, Part 18.102(2).

The Adeptus Defendants

Texas and Colorado.

Health Management LLC.

27. In April 2015, University of Colorado Health, a Colorado nonprofit corporation

Management LLC, a Texas limited liability company, as Manager.

Adeptuss First Choice and UCHealth FSERs

First Choice brand.

facilities in Colorado were rebranded as UCHealth Emergency Rooms.

the cost-effectiveness and quality of services rendered to patients.

The Deceptive Business Model

volumes within a facilitys local community.

one will be charged a costly Facilities Fee.

increased cost (see www.fcer.com/about-us/our-mission).

48. Facilities Fees have been reported to be $6,000 or more.

49. Urgent care centers do not charge Facilities Fees.

50. Doctors offices do not charge Facilities Fees.

51. Adeptus, however, charges every single patientemergency or notastronomical

in out-of-pocket expenses than a traditional emergency room attached to a hospital.

Facilities Fees to patients.

proposed in Colorado in 2014, but never voted on.

Adeptuss Duty to Disclose

organization shall not be misleading to patients. 25 TEX. ADMIN. CODE 131.59(f)(5),(g).

based emergency department.

to make clear that their billing includes Facility Fees.

60. In fact, nowhere in Adeptuss patient intake formsincluding the Financial

Treatment Formare the Facilities Fees disclosed.

This business presents itself in a misleading a deceptive way as it appears similar to an

Facility charge. This was never disclosed prior to treatment

and business practices.3

Adeptus predatory billing practices.

Plaintiff and Class Representative Dr. David Adkinsons Experience

so he visited the Adeptus/UCHealth location in Colorado Springs (North Location/Meadowgrass

charged by a nearby urgent care facility.

which was the Facilities Fee.

examination and a diagnosis of a bruise.

71. Dr. Adkinsons experience is illustrative and typical of Adeptuss common,

widespread and classwide deceptive business practices.

consisting, respectively, of:

of consanguinity to such judge.

common question of law or fact to be shown through common evidence are: