statute may not assert a lien against the claim of a patient with health insurance for an amount beyond what the contract between the provider and the health insurance company dictates. The focus of courts so holding is on the exis tence of an underlying debt being necessary to support a lien, leading them to reason that a provider is not entitled to file a lien under the hospital lien statute when the patient’s obligation to the provider has been satisfied by the payment made by her health insurer. E.g., Wright, 941 P.2d at 500. The court in Dorr, for example, focused on the plain meaning of the word “lien” itself, reasoning that it indicates that the existence of a debt is required for a lien to exist. Dorr,-597 N.W.2d at 469-70. In West ec. 234, 817 N.E.2d 592, 599 (2 Dist.2004) (<HOLDING>). 4 . The brief of St. Luke's gives great
holding that the lien bond releases the property from the lien but the lien is then secured by the bond holding that effect of discharge of debt under bankruptcy code is the same as it was under the 1898 bankruptcy act it is not an extinguishment of the debt but only a bar to enforcement of the debt as a personal obligation of the debt or holding that the hospitals lien coverfed only the amounts of the debt owed holding that under nebraskas physicians lien statute a physicians lien could not exceed the amount the health care provider agreed to accept for the services rendered to a patient even if the usual and customary charge for such services is greater than that sum because the statute extends such lien only to the amount due or debt of the patient to the hospital holding that an entity engaged in collection activity on a defaulted debt acquired from another is a debt collector under the fdcpa even though it may actually be owed the debt