Adeptus Amended Complaint

Case 4:17-cv-00006-ALM Document 6 Filed 01/27/17 Page 1 of 34 PageID #: 35
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SHERMAN DIVISION
DAVID ADKINSON, )
BRENT BLONIGAN, )
CHATAN PATEL, )
KRISSA AND MICHAEL PRICE, and )
TRUMAN BLOCKER III, )
Individually and on behalf of all others )
similarly-situated, )
)
Plaintiffs )
)
v. ) No. 4:17-cv-00006
)
ADEPTUS HEALTH INC., )
ADEPTUS HEALTH LLC, )
ADEPTUS HEALTH COLORADO HOLDINGS LLC, )
and ADEPTUS HEALTH MANAGEMENT LLC, )
)
Defendants. )
PLAINTIFFS FIRST AMENDED 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, deceptive, 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.
1
3. Indeed, Adeptus actively conceals its billing practices from consumers until they
send the patients their bills.
4. It is only upon receiving their bills that consumers learn for the first time that
Adeptus charges the exorbitant Facilities Fees, which have been reported to be as much as $6,000
or higher.
5. Adeptuss failure to disclose the unconscionable Facilities Fees, including their
amount and that they will be vastly disproportionate to the costs of services rendered, to their
trusting patients is fraudulent, unconscionable, constitutes deceptive trade practices, and has
resulted in hundreds of millions of dollars of unjust enrichment to Adeptus.
6. Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others in Texas and Colorado similarly
situated (Class Members), sue Adeptus to recover all Facilities Fees paid by Texas and Colorado
consumers during the respective Class Periods 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. Plaintiff Brent Blonigan is a bond manager for an insurance and risk management
company and resides and is domiciled in McKinney, TX. Mr. Blonigan is a citizen of Texas.
9. Plaintiff Chatan Patel is a software engineer residing and domiciled in Northlake,
TX. Mr. Patel is a citizen of Texas.
10. Plaintiffs Krissa and Michael Price reside and are domiciled in Frisco, TX. Mr. and
Mrs. Price are citizens of Texas.
2
11. Plaintiff Truman Blocker III is a retired executive and professor who resides and is
domiciled in Richardson, TX. Mr. Blocker is citizen of Texas.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. 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
3
Management LLC can be served through its registered agent Graham Cherrington at 2941 S. Lake
Vista Drive, Suite 200, Lewisville, TX 75067.
16. 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.
17. 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
18. Freestanding Emergency Medical Care Facilities (FSERs) are staffed by
emergency physicians and have laboratory and radiology equipment, including but not limited to
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.
19. 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. FSERs often target
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.
20. 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.
21. 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
4
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.
22. 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.
23. FSERs and traditional urgent care centers appear to the consuming public to be
synonymous, and it is this perception upon which Adeptus preys.
24. 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.
25. In 2009, Texas passed legislation authorizing FSERs, and the Texas Department of
State Health Services promulgated their governing regulations at 25 Texas Administrative Code
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).
26. 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).
1
See generally https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/sites/default/files/Summary%20Overview%20-
%20Aug%202016.pdf
5
The Adeptus Defendants
27. 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.
28. Plaintiffs have 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.
29. 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.
30. 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
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.
31. 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
6
Agreement governing their rights and duties in the operation and management of the Colorado
FSERs.
32. 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.
33. The Operating Agreement names another Adeptus entity, Adeptus Health
Management LLC, a Texas limited liability company, as Manager.
34. 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.
35. Plaintiffs have referred to these Adeptus entities collectively as Adeptus given
their joint and often indistinguishable operation of the companies FSERs in both Texas and
Colorado.
36. 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
37. With the largest network of independent freestanding emergency rooms in the
United States, Adeptus has experienced rapid growth over the past few years.
7
38. 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.
39. Adeptus facilities in Texas, originally marketed under the First Choice Emergency
Room name, 2 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.
40. In 2014 or early 2015, Adeptus began opening facilities in Colorado under the
First Choice brand.
41. After Adeptus partnered with UCHealth in April 2015, all First Choice FSERs
facilities in Colorado were rebranded as UCHealth Emergency Rooms.
42. UCHealth FSERs, however, continue to be managed and controlled by Adeptus.
43. First Choices website continues to advertise the UCHealth Denver and Colorado
Springs FSER locations along with the Texas locations (see www.fser.com/locations).
44. 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
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.
45. There are now over 20 Adeptus FSERs in Colorado marketed under the UCHealth
name.
2
More recently, some Adeptus facilities have affiliated with Texas Health.
8
The Deceptive Business Model
46. 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 reportedly has been
as much as $6,000 or more.
47. Adeptus has engaged 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.
48. It has been reported that 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.
49. What Adeptus does not tell its patients before they are treated is that each and every
one will be charged a Facilities Fee, or what the amount of that Facilities Fee will be.
50. In fact, rather than advise consumers of the increased costs of visiting its FSERs,
Adeptuss First Choice 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). While other FSERs websites make sure to clearly disclose that, although they may be
similar in appearance, they are not like urgent care facilities and charge Facilities Fees that urgent
9
care facilities do not, Adeptuss First Choice website makes no such clear disclosure and is
deceptive regarding the Facilities Fees charged to consumers.
51. 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.
52. Facilities Fees have been reported to be $6,000 or more.
53. Urgent care centers do not charge Facilities Fees.
54. Doctors offices do not charge Facilities Fees.
55. Adeptus, however, charges every single patientemergency or notastronomical
Facilities Fees.
56. 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.
57. 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 and often cost significantly more to the consumer
in out-of-pocket expenses than a traditional emergency room attached to a hospital.
58. 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
Texas Legislature to water-down a bill requiring FSERs to more fully disclose the costs associated
with FSERs, including the potential amounts of Facilities Fees.
10
59. In May 2015, in an apparent but ultimately anemic effort to increase transparency
to consumers, the Texas Legislature passed Senate Bill 425 which went into effect on January 1,
2016 and requires all Texas FSERs to post a prominent and conspicuous notice at the entrance to
the FSER, in each patient room of the FSER, at each location within the FSER where a person
pays, and on the FSERs website regarding the services rendered and the rates and fees charged
by FSERs. See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE 241.252.
60. Similar legislation prohibiting FSERs from charging Facilities Fees was proposed
in Colorado in 2014, but never voted on.
Adeptuss Duty to Disclose
61. In addition to the notice requirements now required by Senate Bill 425, the Patient
Rights section of the Texas Administrative Code governing FSERs in Texas provides that
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).
62. 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.
11
63. 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.
64. 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,
including that Facilities Fees will be charged and their amount.
65. Indeed, it appears that even after the January 1, 2016 effective date of the Texas
laws, Adeptus has not even been in full compliance as to the requirement that the notices be
conspicuous and prominent (see www.fcer.com), and the fact that the Facilities Fees may be
thousands of dollars and disproportionate to the cost of the actual services rendered remains
undisclosed to consumers. In fact, nowhere in the patient intake forms that were once available
on Adeptuss First Choices websiteincluding the Financial Responsibility and
Acknowledgement Form, the Patient Profile Form, and the Consent for Treatment Formwere
the Facilities Fees disclosed.
66. Adding to the confusion among consumers between FSERs, urgent care facilities
and ERs attached to hospitals, consumers using the Online Checkin option on First Choices
website are cautioned not to checkin online for any life threatening conditions but instead to
call 911 or go to the closest ER immediately. 3
67. When explaining what life threatening condition means, the Online Checkin
portal provides the Definition of Emergency as follows:
3
See, e.g., http://www.fcer.com/locations/houston-map/deer-park/er-express.
12
Any medical condition manifesting itself by acute symptoms of sufficient severity

(including severe pain) such that the absence of immediate medical attention could
reasonably be expected to result in
placing the health of the individual (or, with respect to a pregnant woman, the health
of the woman or her unborn child) in serious jeopardy,
serious impairment to bodily functions, or
serious dysfunction of any bodily organ or part, or
With respect to a pregnant woman who is having contractions

that there is inadequate time to effect a safe transfer to another hospital before
delivery, or
that the transfer may pose a threat to the health or safety of the woman or her unborn
child. 4
68. This language again suggests to the average consumer that the FSER is not a true
emergency room that can treat severe life threatening conditions, but is instead essentially an
urgent care facility offering longer hours and a broader scope of medical services for non-life
threatening conditions.
69. Consumers are further told in the Online Checkin section that they will be screened
upon arrival to the First Choice Adeptus facility, and that if it is determined that their condition is
not a medical emergency, they may be asked to pay their co-payment or other financial
obligation before receiving treatment. Nothing is disclosed in the Online Checkin on the First
Choice website that this other financial obligation could include Facilities Fees totaling
thousands of dollars.
70. 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
4
Id.
13
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 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.
14
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 $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
15
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. 5
71. Adeptus has continued its fraudulent and unconscionable practices in Colorado, and
similar online complaints have been filed by Colorado patients regarding the deceptive billing and
business practices. 6
72. 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
allegedly led to a precipitous drop in Adeptuss stock price and a number of securities class actions
based upon Adeptus predatory billing practices.
73. Adeptus has collected hundreds of millions of dollars in Facilities Fees during the
respective Class Periods.
Plaintiff and Class Representative Dr. David Adkinsons Experience
74. 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.).
5
See generally https://www.bbb.org/dallas/business-reviews/emergency-rooms/adeptus-health-in-
lewisville-tx-90025265/reviews-and-complaints.
6
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
16
75. 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.
76. 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.
77. A few months later, Dr. Adkinson received a bill for over $2,000, over $1,200 of
which was the Facilities Fee.
78. The Facilities Fee and its amount was not disclosed to him before or while he was
being treated at the Colorado FSER.
79. Ultimately, Adeptus charged Dr. Adkinson more than $2,000 for a five-minute
examination and a diagnosis of a bruise.
80. Had Dr. Adkinson known in advance that he would be charged a Facilities Fee, he
would have sought the same treatment elsewhere.
81. Dr. Adkinsons experience is illustrative and typical of Adeptuss common,
widespread and classwide deceptive business practices.
Plaintiff and Class Representative Brent Blonigans Experience
82. In April 2016, Plaintiff Brent Blonigan visited an Adeptus First Choice
Emergency Room facility in McKinney, Texas, because he had been experiencing pain in his
back for a few days.
83. At the time of his visit, Mr. Blonigan was not aware that the fees charged by
Adeptus would be substantively different, not to mention significantly higher, than the fees
charged by the urgent care facility less than a mile away.
17
84. Mr. Blonigan was at the Adeptus FSER for less than an hour, with approximately
half an hour of that time waiting to see a physician. He was seen by a physician for approximately
5 minutes and given several x-rays.
85. Mr. Blonigan was diagnosed with back pain, given a prescription for a pain
medication, an anti-inflammatory medication, and a muscle relaxer and told to follow up with his
doctor if he was not better in 3 to 5 days.
86. Approximately three weeks later, Mr. Blonigan received a bill for more than $4,000
for the cost of his one-hour visit to the Adeptus facility. This amount did not include the charges
for the doctors time, which he was billed for separately.
being treated at the Texas FSER, and Mr. Blonigan saw no signs or other notices disclosing that
he would be charged a Facilities Fee.
88. Ultimately, Mr. Blonigan was charged more than $4,000 dollars for Adeptus to tell
him what he already knew that he had back pain, to prescribe several medications for pain relief,
and to tell him to follow-up with his own doctor.
89. Had Mr. Blonigan known in advance that he would be charged a Facilities Fee, he
90. Mr. Blonigans experience is illustrative and typical of Adeptuss common,
Plaintiff and Class Representative Chatan Patels Experience
91. In January 2016, Plaintiff Chatan Patel and his wife took their 11-year-old daughter
to an Adeptus First Choice Emergency Room in Highland Village, Texas, because his daughter
had a fever.
18
92. At the time of the visit, Mr. Patel was not aware that the fees charged by the First
Choice facility would be substantively different, not to mention significantly higher, than the fees
charged by an urgent care facility.
93. After a short visit and exam, including a test for strep throat which was negative
and a blood draw, Mr. Patels daughter was given a non-prescription fever reducer and a steroid
shot and sent home.
94. Mr. Patels visit to the Adeptus facility with his family lasted less than an hour.
95. Several days later, Mr. Patel received a bill from First Choice for more than $3,700,
more than $2,600 of which was a Facilities Fee.
96. The Facilities Fee was not disclosed to him before or while his minor daughter was
being treated at the Texas FSER, and Mr. Patel saw no signs or other notices disclosing that he
would be charged a Facilities Fee.
97. Had Mr. Patel known in advance that he would be charged a Facilities Fee, he
would have sought the same treatment for his daughter elsewhere.
98. Mr. Patels experience is illustrative and typical of Adeptuss common, widespread
and classwide deceptive business practices.
Plaintiffs and Class Representatives Krissa and Michael Prices Experience
99. In December 2015, Plaintiff Krissa Price took her 11-year-old son to an Adeptus
First Choice Emergency Room in Frisco, Texas after he cut his index finger while ice skating.
100. At the time of the visit, Mrs. Price was not aware that the fees charged by the
Adeptus First Choice facility would be substantively different, not to mention significantly higher,
than the fees charged by an urgent care facility.
19
101. After a brief exam by a physician, Mrs. Prices minor son was diagnosed with a
superficial cut to his left index finger, given four stitches, and told to come back in 10 days to have
the stitches removed. No x-rays or scans were performed, and the total visit lasted less than 40
minutes.
102. Mrs. Price returned with her son to the First Choice facility 10 days later to have
the stitches removed. This visit lasted less than 13 minutes.
103. Mrs. Price and her husband later received a bill for more than $2,700 for the first
visit and more than $2,100 for the second visit.
104. The Facilities Fee was not disclosed to Mrs. Price during either visit to the Texas
FSER, and Mrs. Price saw no signs or other notices disclosing that the Prices would be charged a
Facilities Fee.
105. In essence, Adeptus charged the Prices almost $5,000 for the placement and
removal of a total of four stitches and less than one hour of combined time in the FSER facility.
106. Had the Prices known in advance that they would be charged Facilities Fees, they
would have sought the same treatment for their son elsewhere.
107. The Pricess experience is illustrative and typical of Adeptuss common,
Plaintiff and Class Representative Truman Blockers Experience
108. In December 2015, Plaintiff Truman Blocker visited an Adeptus First Choice
Emergency Room facility in Richardson, TX because he believed he had a sinus infection
requiring an antibiotic.
20
109. At the time of his visit, Mr. Blocker was not aware that the fees charged by Adeptus
would be substantively different, not to mention significantly higher, than the fees charged by
urgent care facilities. Upon registration, Mr. Blocker paid what he believed was his co-pay.
110. Mr. Blocker was at the Adeptus FSER for approximately 30 minutes, with only
about two minutes of that time spent substantively with the physician for diagnostic purposes. Mr.
Blocker was diagnosed with an upper respiratory infection, was given a shot, and received a
prescription for a Z-Pack.
111. When Mr. Blockers infection did not entirely clear up, he called the facility and
requested another round of antibiotics. Adeptus told Mr. Blocker he would need to come back in.
112. Mr. Blocker returned to the facility in late 2015, paid what he thought was another
co-pay, was diagnosed with acute bronchitis and was given a refill of the prescription.
113. Approximately nine months later, Mr. Blocker received a bill for more than $4,000,
over $2,700 of which was for the Facilities Fee.
being treated at the First Choice FSER, and Mr. Blocker saw no signs or other notices disclosing
that he would be charged a Facilities Fee.
115. Ultimately, Mr. Blocker was charged more than $4,000 dollars for a prescription
for two rounds of an antibiotic.
116. Had Mr. Blocker known in advance that he would be charged a Facilities Fee, he
117. Mr. Blockers experience is illustrative and typical of Adeptuss common,
21
Class Allegations
118. Pursuant to FRCP 23(a), (b)(2) and (b)(3), Plaintiffs bring this action on their own
behalf and on behalf of proposed classes of all other similarly situated persons in Colorado and
Texas consisting respectively, of:
All persons in Texas that were charged a Facilities Fee for visiting a First
Choice-branded or Texas Health-branded freestanding emergency room in
the four years preceding the filing of the Complaint in this action (the
Texas Class); and
All persons in 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 the Complaint in this action (the
Colorado Class).
119. 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.
120. Upon information and belief, the Classes consists of thousands of consumers.
Accordingly, it would be impracticable to join all Class Members before the Court.
121. There are numerous and substantial questions of law or fact common to all of the
members of the Classes and which predominate over any individual issues. Included within the
common question of law or fact to be shown through common evidence are:
22
1. Whether Adeptus had a duty to disclose that Facilities Fees would be charged and
their actual or estimated amount;
2. Whether Adeptus failed to disclose the Facilities Fees and their actual or estimated
amount;
3. Whether this omission was part of Adeptuss uniform policies and/or customary
pattern and practices;
4. Whether Adeptus intended to induce Plaintiffs and Class Members to pay the
Facilities Fees;
5. Whether Adeptus engaged in unconscionable actions;
6. Whether Adeptus breached its duty of good faith and fair dealing;
7. Whether the Adeptus entities conspired with each other and their partners;
8. Whether Adeptus was unjustly enriched by the collection of Facilities Fees; and
9. The proper measure and amount of damages sustained by Plaintiffs and Class
Members.
122. The claims of the Plaintiffs 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 Plaintiffs and Defendants conduct affecting Class
Members, and Plaintiffs have no interests adverse to the interests other Class Members.
123. Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of Class Members and has
retained counsel experienced and competent in the prosecution of complex class actions.
124. Adeptus has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the Classes,
thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief with respect
to the Classes as a whole.
23
125. The questions of law and fact common to the members of the Classes predominate
over any questions affecting only individual members, if any.
126. Adeptuss failure to disclose Facilities Fees and their actual or estimated amount
will be shown through common evidence.
127. 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) Plaintiffs are 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 Plaintiffs and
Defendants; and (4) there are no difficulties likely to be encountered in the management of this
class action.
Causes Of Action
Count One Fraud by NonDisclosure
(On Behalf of the Texas and Colorado Classes)
128. Plaintiffs incorporate all preceding paragraphs as if fully set out herein.
129. Adeptus failed to disclose to Plaintiffs and Class Members in advance of treating
them that they would be charged a Facilities Fee.
130. In both Texas and Colorado, Adeptus had a statutory duty to disclose to Plaintiffs
and Class Members that it would charge Plaintiffs and Class Members the Facilities Fee. See 25
TEX. ADMIN. CODE 131.59(f)(5),(g); COLO. REV. STAT. 6-20-101.
131. Adeptus, however, failed to make information available to patients concerning the
Facilities Fees they would be charged for services provided, including that they would be charged
a Facilities Fee and the actual or estimated amount of that fee.
24
132. Adeptus also had a common-law duty to disclose the 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.
133. Moreover, the Facilities Fees were basic to the transaction between Plaintiffs/Class
Members and Adeptus. Adeptus knew that Plaintiffs and Class Members were about to enter into
transactions with Adeptus under a mistake as to the Facilities Fees, and that Plaintiffs/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.
134. The fact that Adeptus charges Facilities Fees and their amount 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 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.
135. Adeptus knew and knows that consumers including Plaintiffs and Class Members
are ignorant of their billing practices and, absent disclosure of the Facilities Fees and their amounts
up-front, Plaintiffs 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.
25
136. Adeptus knew it was concealing the Facilities Fees, including their amount, and
was deliberately silent when it had a duty to disclose the Facilities Fees to Plaintiffs and Class
Members.
137. By failing to disclose the Facilities Fees and their amounts to Plaintiffs and Class
Members, Adeptus intended to induce Plaintiffs and Class Members to receive treatment at its
facilities and incur the Facilities Fees.
138. There is a reasonable and common class-wide inference of reliance due to
Adeptuss nondisclosure of information which it was statutorily and otherwise obligated to
disclose. Plaintiffs 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 the Facilities Fees and the failure to disclose their actual or estimated amount 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.
139. Had Plaintiffs and Class Members known in advance that they would be charged
Facilities Fees which they would not be charged elsewhere, they would have sought the same
treatment elsewhere.
140. As a proximate result of receiving treatment without the knowledge of the
undisclosed Facilities Fees and their amount, Plaintiffs 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.
26
141. Because Adeptuss nondisclosure was fraudulent, Plaintiffs and Class Members are
also entitled to exemplary damages.
142. Plaintiffs and Class Members also request injunctive relief requiring Adeptus to
fully disclose Facilities Fees and their amounts to all patients before they receive treatment.
Count Two Violation of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act
(On Behalf of the Texas Class)
144. 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.
145. 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).
146. Plaintiffs and Class Members are consumers within the meaning of the DTPA that
sought and acquired by purchase services from Adeptuss FSERs.
147. Adeptus violated section (24) of 17.46 by failing to disclose to Plaintiffs and Class
Members that it would charge a Facilities Fee and/or by failing to disclose the amount of the
Facilities Fee to be charged.
148. At the time Plaintiffs and Class Members transacted business with and received
services from Adeptus, Adeptus knew that it would charge Plaintiffs and Class Members Facilities
Fees that were disproportionate to the actual cost of the medical evaluation and treatment rendered.
27
149. Adeptuss failure to disclose the Facilities Fees and their amounts was intended to
induce Plaintiffs and Class Members to enter into a transaction with and receive services from
Adeptus.
150. Plaintiffs 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
and/or their amount had been disclosed.
151. There is a reasonable and common class-wide inference of reliance due to
Adeptuss nondisclosure of information which it was statutorily obligated to disclose. During the
Class Periods, the failure to disclose Facilities Fees and their amount has been 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.
152. Had Plaintiffs 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.
153. Adeptus also violated section 17.50(a)(3) because charging Plaintiffs 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
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
28
to be charged thousands of dollars in undisclosed fees. Moreover, the unfairness resulting from
Adeptus unconscionable acts is glaringly noticeable, flagrant, complete, and unmitigated.
154. Adeptuss failure to disclose the Facilities Fees, including their amount, 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.
155. Adeptus acted knowingly or intentionally in failing to disclose the Facilities Fees
and their amount. Adeptus charges every single consumer Facilities Fees and knew it would do
so to Plaintiffs and Class Members, but failed to disclose this to Plaintiffs and Class Members.
Adeptus thus acted with actual awareness of the falsity of its non-disclosure and with the specific
intent that Plaintiffs and Class Members would act in detrimental reliance on the non-disclosure.
Plaintiffs and Class Members are therefore entitled to three times their economic damages.
156. Because Adeptuss violation of the DTPA as set out herein was a producing cause
of damages to a class of consumers, Plaintiffs and Class Members also request injunctive relief
requiring Adeptus to fully disclose Facilities Fees and their amounts to all patients before they
receive treatment. Adeptus should also be ordered to restore to Plaintiffs and Class Members all
money acquired in violation of the DTPA.
157. 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
Class Members. With every day that goes by, the claims of Class Members victimized by Adeptus
wrongdoing expire.
29
158. Plaintiffs will provide a copy of this Complaint to the consumer protection division
as required by 17.501.
Count Three Violation of the Colorado Consumer Protection Act
(On Behalf of the Colorado Class)
160. By failing to disclose the Facilities Fees and their amounts to patients, Adeptus
engaged in unfair and deceptive trade practices by failing to disclose material information
concerning their services and the pricing for them in violation of the Colorado Consumer
Protection Act. COLO. REV. STAT. 6-1-101, et seq.
161. Adeptus knew it would charge Facilities Fees at the time of rendering services but
failed to disclose them with the intention of inducing Plaintiffs and class members to enter into
transactions with and receive treatment from Adeptus.
162. Adeptuss fraudulent failure to disclose the Facilities Fees occurred in the course
of its business operations as free-standing emergency centers.
163. Adeptuss fraudulent, deceptive, and misleading failure to disclose the Facilities
Fees and their amounts significantly impacts the public as actual or potential consumers of
Adeptuss business are incurring millions of dollars of undisclosed Facilities Fees.
164. Plaintiffs and class members relied on Adeptuss nondisclosure by receiving
treatment without knowledge of the Facilities Fees and unknowingly incurring those Fees. In this
case, there is a class-wide inference of reliance due to Defendants nondisclosure.
165. Adeptuss fraudulent, deceptive, and misleading failure to disclose the Facilities
Fees caused Plaintiff and class members injury in fact, including the loss of money.
30
166. Plaintiffs and class members also request injunctive relief requiring Adeptus to
disclose Facilities Fees to all patients before they receive treatment.
Count Four Money Had and Received/Unjust Enrichment
168. As a result of its collection of Facilities Fees from Plaintiffs and Class Members,
Adeptus obtained and holds money that in equity and good conscience belongs to Plaintiffs and
Class Members.
169. By accepting payment of the undisclosed Facilities Fees, Adeptus received a benefit
to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars.
170. The benefit of the Facilities Fees was received by Adeptus at Plaintiffs and Class
Members expense because Plaintiffs and Class Members were forced to pay them despite the fact
that they were undisclosed to Plaintiffs 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.
171. It would be unjust for Adeptus to retain the benefit of the Facilities Fees because
they were secured by fraud and deception.
172. As a result of Adeptuss unjust enrichment, Plaintiffs and the class are entitled to
recover as actual damages, and Adeptus should be ordered to disgorge, all Facilities Fees received
by Adeptus during the Class Period.
Count Five Civil Conspiracy
31
174. The Adeptus entities and their partners were members of various business
combinations that had a meeting of the minds to pursue a course of action to defraud hundreds or
thousands of Texas and Colorado consumers by failing to disclose Facilities Fees to them in
advance of being treated at Adeptus FSERs.
175. The object of the combinations was to accomplish the unlawful purpose of
extracting undisclosed and deceptive Facilities Fees from its trusting patients.
176. The Adeptus entities committed hundreds or thousands of overt acts in furtherance
of the conspiracy by failing to disclose Facilities Fees to patients treated at Adeptus FSERs.
177. As a proximate result of the conspiracy and the overt, wrongful acts taken by
Adeptus, Plaintiffs and the class members sustained millions of dollars in damages in Facilities
Fees.
Count Six Breach of Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing
(On Behalf of the Colorado Class)
179. Adeptus entered into contracts with Plaintiffs and class members by which Adeptus
agreed to provide medical care to Plaintiffs and class members.
180. Adeptus breached its duty of good faith and fair dealing because it acted dishonestly
and outside of accepted commercial practices to deprive Plaintiffs and class members of the benefit
of the contracts by failing to disclose upfront that Plaintiffs and class members would be charged
unconscionable Facilities Fees, then assessing the massive Facilities Fees only after Plaintiffs and
class members were treated.
181. Adeptus acted in bad faith in performing its obligations under its contracts with
Plaintiffs and class members because Adeptus was unfaithful to the agreed purpose of the
32
contractsproviding medical care at a reasonable costand because Adeptuss actions were
inconsistent with the justified and reasonable expectations of Plaintiffs and class members to be
billed fairly and reasonably.
182. Adeptus had and used discretion as to how much it would charge Plaintiffs and
class members, including the undisclosed Facilities Fees whose amount was based upon criteria
known only to Adeptus, and Adeptus abused that discretion to defeat Plaintiffs and class
members reasonable expectation of paying a reasonable bill for the services rendered.
183. As result of Adeptuss breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, Plaintiffs
and class members were denied the benefit of their bargain and suffered damages in the amount of
the Facilities Fees they were charged.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
184. Plaintiffs demand trial by jury as to all issues so triable as a matter of right.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs and the Class request the following relief and that the Court:
a. Grant certification of this case as a class action;
b. Appoint Plaintiffs as Class Representatives 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;
33
f. Award punitive damages; and
g. For all such other and further relief as may be just and proper.
Respectfully submitted this 27th 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
(P) 972.387.4040
(F) 972.387.4041
Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Putative Class
34

Adeptus Amended Complaint

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Adeptus Amended Complaint

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Case 4:17-cv-00006-ALM Document 6 Filed 01/27/17 Page 1 of 34 PageID #: 35

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

PLAINTIFFS FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

UCHealth Emergency Room) fraudulent, deceptive, and unconscionable failure to disclose

emergency rooms (the FSERs).

send the patients their bills.

5. Adeptuss failure to disclose the unconscionable Facilities Fees, including their

resulted in hundreds of 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.

9. Plaintiff Chatan Patel is a software engineer residing and domiciled in Northlake,

TX. Mr. Patel is a citizen of Texas.

Mrs. Price are citizens of Texas.

domiciled in Richardson, TX. Mr. Blocker is citizen of Texas.

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.

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

18. 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.

31. 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.

42. UCHealth FSERs, however, continue to be managed and controlled by Adeptus.

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

The Deceptive Business Model

as much as $6,000 or more.

order to increase patient volumes within a facilitys local community.

clinics without disclosing the dramatically increased cost (see www.fcer.com/about-us/our-

deceptive regarding the Facilities Fees charged to consumers.

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

53. Urgent care centers do not charge Facilities Fees.

54. Doctors offices do not charge Facilities Fees.

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

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

with FSERs, including the potential amounts of Facilities Fees.

by FSERs. See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE 241.252.

in Colorado in 2014, but never voted on.

Adeptuss Duty to Disclose

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).

based emergency department.

including that Facilities Fees will be charged and their amount.

on Adeptuss First Choices websiteincluding the Financial Responsibility and

the Facilities Fees disclosed.

call 911 or go to the closest ER immediately. 3

portal provides the Definition of Emergency as follows:

Any medical condition manifesting itself by acute symptoms of sufficient severity

With respect to a pregnant woman who is having contractions

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

I consider First Choice's business practices to be fraudulent and misleading