Complain about a product or service

Pennsylvania Sues Hearing Aid Firm For Elder Abuse

September 11, 2006

Hearing Aids • Hearing Loss Affects One in Three Over 60 • Pennsylvania Sues Hearing Aid Firm For Elder Abuse • Oregon Hearing Aid Fitters Settle State Charges • Pennsylvania Sues Two Hearing Aid Dealers • PA Fines Hearing Aid Company $190,000 • MA Hearing Aid Dealer Ordered to Pay Restitution • Hearing Aids Getting Cheaper --- • Consumer Complaints about Hearing Aids ---

Pennsylvania Attorney General Tom Corbett has filed a 19-count civil lawsuit against a hearing aid fitter and seller accused of practicing medicine without a license and defrauding consumers by making misleading and deceptive claims.

The defendant is also accused of altering test results and later illegally revising consumers' documents after receiving a subpoena by the Attorney General's office seeking information.

The suit represents one of the largest civil actions filed by the Attorney General's office against a hearing aid dealer in the Commonwealth, and the first complaint filed by the Attorney General's newly created Elder Abuse Unit.

The legal action follows an investigation into complaints from mostly older Pennsylvanians and information obtained by agents with the Attorney General's Health Care Section including statements from former employees.

Corbett identified the defendant as Lori A. Firestone, owner and operator of Lori Firestone's Hearing Aid Service of York County, Pennsylvania. Firestone allegedly violated Pennsylvania's Consumer Protection Law, Hearing Aid Sales Registration Law, and Speech-Language and Hearing Licensure Act.

According to investigators, Firestone, a registered hearing aid fitter and seller with the Pennsylvania Department of Health, entered into contracts with consumers to fit and sell hearing aid devices through 2006. Those who agreed to do business with her typically paid between $ 2,500 and $9,000 for the products and services.

The 19-count lawsuit accuses the defendant of violating state laws by engaging in the following business practices:

• Using written materials that misled or failed to inform consumers during initial contact that representations made by a hearing aid fitter or seller is not an examination, diagnosis or prescription by a person licensed to practice medicine and must not be regarded as a medical opinion.

• Failing to inform consumers, prior to fitting or selling hearing aids that they should see a licensed medical doctor if any of the eight specific legally mandated conditions involving diseases of the ear are present.

• Failing to mention or explain the medical waiver to consumers and the consequences of waiving an examination by a medical doctor.

• Misrepresenting the need for hearing aids, replacement aids or that the devices cannot be repaired.

• Backdating purchase agreements, medical waivers, and warranty disclosures.

• Failing to provide consumers with a disclosure agreement prior to performing any services that outlines the fitting process, fees, delivery procedures and other conditions.

• Failing to comply with the 30-day money back written guarantee by denying refunds, ignoring requests for refunds during the allowable time period, and failing to make prompt refunds.

• Failing to inform consumers of their right to cancel.

• Selling consumers used or reconditioned hearing aids without their knowledge and failing to provide consumers with proper written receipts and explanation of warranties.

• Delivering different hearing aids than the brand consumers purchased.

• Using deceptive ads and "bait and switch" sales tactics and made-up titles that infer special education, skill, accreditation or expertise.

• Making false or misleading claims about offering consumers "free batteries for life" with the purchase of certain hearing aid products.

• Falsely claiming to offer "very low prices," or discounts when the prices fluctuated or were set to reflect a 300 to 900 percent markup.

• Falsely claiming to offer a "Worldwide No Questions Asked Warranty."

• Advertising services that, by law, can only be provided by a licensed physician.

• Allowing trainees, without consumers' knowledge, to perform services that can only be performed by registered hearing aid fitters.

Other alleged violations included claims that Firestone altered audiograms or hearing test results to convince consumers that they needed one or more hearing aids.

Additionally, in July 2000 the defendant allegedly practiced medicine without a license by diagnosing a minor child with inoperative nerve deafness, stating that the boy's hearing could only be corrected with the use of hearing aids. In reality, the child's physician correctly identified the patient as a surgical candidate who underwent an operation that restored his hearing loss.

"We accuse this defendant of harming consumers both physically and financially by consistently violating many of the legal provisions under state law regarding the sale of hearing aids in the Commonwealth," Corbett said.

"Consumers who didn't need or would not benefit from hearing aids were sold these very expensive devices. We discovered illegal medical diagnoses, altered documents and test results and host of promises that were never kept. In the end, mostly older Pennsylvanians were defrauded and in some cases dangerously misled about potential diseases or other health conditions associated with their hearing loss."

Corbett noted that this is the first civil case being brought by the Attorney General's Elder Abuse Unit, which was created in July 2006 to address the growing number of crimes and scams targeted at Pennsylvania's nearly two-million seniors.

"The sole mission of the Elder Abuse Unit is to investigate and prosecute all forms of abuse of the elderly, including financial exploitation, physical abuse and sexual assault," Corbett said.

"Just as the Attorney General's Office has developed an expertise in fighting drug dealers with prosecutors and narcotics agents who focus solely on drug investigations, the single purpose of prosecutors and the agents of the Elder Abuse Unit will be to pursue those who prey on our senior citizens."

Corbett said the lawsuit seeks nearly $10,000 in restitution for consumers who filed complaints with the Attorney General's Office, plus full refunds for others who come forward with claims of similar harm by the defendant.

The complaint also asks the court to require the defendant to:

• Pay civil penalties of $1,000 per violation and $3,000 for each violation involving a consumer age 60 or older.

• Permanently cease operating in violation of applicable state laws.

• Forfeit her right to conduct business in the Commonwealth until restitution and civil penalties are paid.

• Pay the Commonwealth's investigation costs.

Report Your Experience
If you've had a bad experience -- or a good one -- with a consumer product or service, we'd like to hear about it. All complaints are reviewed by class action attorneys and are considered for publication on our site. Knowledge is power! Help spread the word. File your consumer report now.