United States of America et al v. HPC Healthcare, Inc. et al
Filing
217
ORDER: Defendants' Motion for Entitlement to Attorney's Fees 211 is DENIED. The case remains DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE against Relator Nancy Chase and DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE against the United States. The case is to remain closed. Signed by Judge James S. Moody, Jr on 10/25/2016. (LN)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, STATE
OF FLORIDA and NANCY CHASE,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Case No: 8:10-cv-1061-T-30TGW
LIFEPATH HOSPICE, INC., GOOD
SHEPHERD HOSPICE, INC., MOBILE
PHYSICIAN SERVICES, P.A.,
CHAPTERS HEALTH, INC.,
CHAPTERS HEALTH SYSTEM, INC.,
RONALD SCHONWETTER, SAYED
HUSSAIN, DIANA YATES, RICHARD
M. WACKSMAN, JSA HEALTHCARE
CORPORATION, SUNRISE SENIOR
LIVING SERVICES, INC. and
SUPERIOR RESIDENCES, INC.,
Defendants.
ORDER
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Defendants' Motion for Entitlement to
Attorney's Fees (Dkt. 211), and Plaintiff's Response (Dkt. 215). The Court has reviewed
these filings, the record, and the applicable law and concludes, as discussed briefly below,
that the motion should be denied.
DISCUSSION
In this action alleging violations of the False Claims Act, the Court recently
dismissed Relator Nancy Chase’s Fourth Amended Complaint, with prejudice, for failing
to adequately state her claims according to the applicable Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
In that dismissal order, the Court summarized the inadequacies:
Throughout her complaint, Chase alleges the existence of
widespread medical abuses committed by hospice-care and other
medical providers. She fails, however, to allege the connection
between those abuses and the existence of false claims submitted
to the government for payment. Later in her complaint, Chase
alleges that she objected to the medical abuses she became aware
of. She fails, however, to allege the connection between the
practices she objected to and the commission of fraud against the
government.
(Dkt. 210, p. 24).
Now several Defendants move for the award of attorney’s fees. The False Claims
Act permits district courts to award attorney’s fees to prevailing defendants if “the action
was clearly frivolous, clearly vexatious, or brought primarily for the purposes of
harassment.” 31 U.S.C. § 3730(d)(4).
A careful review of the record makes clear that this case meets none of these
descriptions. In dismissing her complaint, the Court acknowledged that Chase “describe[d]
a private scheme in detail, to include facts as to some disturbing medical practices.” Dkt.
210, p. 15. Chase’s failure stemmed from her inability to connect these practices to the
fraudulent submission of claims for payment. The Court also acknowledged, as the
Eleventh Circuit has, that this standard is often a difficult one to meet, especially for
someone like Chase who does not have firsthand knowledge of billing practices. Id. at 15–
16 (citing United States ex rel. Clausen v. Laboratory Corp. of America, Inc., 290 F.3d
1301, 1311 (11th Cir. 2002)). Falling short of this standard does not make a lawsuit
frivolous, vexatious, or harassing. See Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 14 (1980) (“The fact
2
that a plaintiff may ultimately lose his case is not in itself a sufficient justification for the
assessment of fees.”).
Moreover, the United States investigated this case for more than five years before
deciding that it would not intervene. And still, the government recently asked that the Court
to clarify that its dismissal order was without prejudice against the government. (Dkt. 212).
These facts, coupled with the complaint’s well-pleaded allegations of disturbing medical
practices, convinces the Court that this case is not among those Congress wanted to deter
with the award of attorney’s fees.
It is therefore ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:
1.
Defendants’ Motion for Entitlement to Attorney’s Fees (Dkt. 211) is
DENIED.
2.
The case remains DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE against Relator Nancy
Chase and DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE against the United States.
3.
The case is to remain closed.
DONE and ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, this 25th day of October, 2016.
Copies furnished to:
Counsel/Parties of Record
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?