Academy Health Center, Inc. et al v. Hyperion Foundation, Inc. et al
ORDER denying 216 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by District Judge Carlton W. Reeves on 07/31/2017. (NM)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
ex rel. ACADEMY HEALTH CENTER,
INC. f/k/a ADVENTIST HEALTH
CAUSE NO. 3:10-CV-00552-CWR-LRA
HYPERION FOUNDATION, INC.
d/b/a OXFORD HEALTH &
REHABILITATION CENTER, et al.
Before the Court is Academy Health Center’s motion for reconsideration, Docket No.
216, in which Academy asks the Court to revise its July 9, 2014, Order dismissing all but one of
Academy’s claims, United States ex rel Academy Health Center, Inc., v. Hyperion Found., Inc.,
No. 3:10–CV–552–CWR–LRA, 2014 WL 3385189 (S.D. Miss. July 9, 2014).1 Dismissal was
based in part on the Court’s finding that the False Claims Act’s public disclosure bar precluded
subject matter jurisdiction.
Academy says the Court erroneously applied the public disclosure bar, as it existed prior
to its 2010 amendment by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“PPACA”), to conduct
that allegedly occurred post-amendment. To this point, Academy argues that the dates of the
conduct alleged in its second amended complaint dictate which version of the statue applies, not
the date on which the suit was filed.2 This argument was rejected by the Court on the motion to
dismiss three years ago. See Academy Health Center, 2014 WL 3385189, at *26 n.42. (“Given
that the PPACA amendment does not have retroactive effect and was not in place when the action
Academy’s remaining cause of action is against Defendants HP/Ancillaries, Inc., Hp/Management Group, Inc.,
Sentry Healthcare Acquirors, Inc., and Julie Mittleider for conspiracy to violate the FCA.
This case has been pending since September 30, 2009. See Docket No. 1-3.
was filed, the Court will apply only the pre-PPACA version of the public disclosure bar.”).
Academy now points out that none of the cases the Court relied upon in its prior Order involved
false claims that were submitted after the PPACA amendment.
Still, one thing remains certain: “the amendment process [for pleadings] cannot be used
to create jurisdiction retroactively where it did not previously exist.” United States ex rel.
Jamison v. McKesson Corp., 649 F.3d 322, 328 (5th Cir. 2011) (quotation marks omitted).
Because subject matter jurisdiction was lacking at the commencement of this suit, the dates
alleged in Academy’s second amended complaint cannot save the dismissed claims. See id. at
328 n.8 (recognizing that 28 U.S.C. § 1653 allows amendment to cure technical defects in
jurisdiction, not substantive defects). Accordingly, the motion for reconsideration is denied.
SO ORDERED, this the 31st day of July, 2017.
s/ Carlton W. Reeves
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?