-GWF United States of America et al v. APS Healthcare, Inc. et al
Filing
35
ORDER Granting in part and Denying in part 18 Motion to Dismiss Relator's Complaint. Relators 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(2) NRS § 357.040(1)(b) claims are dismissed without prejudice. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 1/30/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLR)
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
8
***
9
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,
10
Plaintiffs,
v.
11
12
Case No. 2:11-cv-01454-MMD-GWF
ORDER
(Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Relator’s
Complaint – dkt. no. 18)
APS HEALTHCARE, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
13
14
15
I.
SUMMARY
Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Relator’s Complaint. (Dkt. no.
16
17
18.) For the reasons stated below, the Motion is granted in part and denied in part.
18
II.
BACKGROUND
19
On April 8, 2008, APS Healthcare, Inc. (“APS”) contracted with the State of
20
Nevada Department of Health and Human Services (“NDHHS”), Division of Health Care
21
Financing and Policy (“DHCFP” or “Medicaid”), to provide certain care management and
22
care coordination services to a specific population of Nevada Medicaid beneficiaries.
23
The program aimed to improve the overall health status of aged, blind, and disabled
24
(“ABD”) recipients within the Medicaid Fee-for-Service system. The program was known
25
as the Care Management, Care Coordination, and Behavioral Health Provider
26
Recruitment Program (the “Program”), and was designed to decrease Medicaid’s costs
27
associated with treating severely or chronically ill patients by utilizing preventative care
28
to reduce emergency room visits and inpatient hospitalizations.
1
Plaintiff Relator Cheryle Kerr (“Relator”) is a former APS employee. She was
2
formerly employed as a Client Services Coordinator II in APS’ Las Vegas, Nevada office.
3
She held the position from September 2, 2008, through December 28, 2009, when she
4
resigned. Relator alleges that APS engaged in Medicaid fraud. Relator asserts that
5
APS violated federal and state False Claims Act (“FCA”) by failing to carry out certain
6
purported requirements under contract and billing DHCFP as if APS had fulfilled such
7
contractual obligations. For example, Relator alleges that APS enrolled patients in the
8
Program without their consent and billed Medicaid for these patients’ participation in the
9
program, despite the fact that APS did not actually provide services under the Program.
10
She further alleges that APS enrolled and billed Medicaid for “ghost patients” – that is,
11
even when APS employees were unable to obtain a patient’s consent to participate in
12
the Program, APS employees were instructed to enter a notation into the computer
13
system that the contact had been “successful,” and that the patient had been enrolled
14
“for mailings only.”
15
based model of healthcare provision required in its contract with the government.
Relator also contends that APS unilaterally disbanded the field-
16
Relator alleges that APS concealed its contractual breaches by (1) fabricating
17
electronic and paper records and making false statements to Nevada Medicaid officials,
18
and (2) pressuring Relator to lie to a Nevada Medicaid official reviewing APS’ field-based
19
model.
20
Relator filed this action under seal pursuant to the federal FCA, 31 U.S.C. § 3729,
21
et seq., and the Nevada FCA, NRS § 354.040, et seq., on September 9, 2011. (Dkt. no.
22
1.) The United States and the State of Nevada declined to intervene. (Dkt. no. 9.) The
23
Court ordered the Complaint unsealed on May 17, 2012.
24
III.
SUBMITTING FALSE CLAIMS
25
A.
Legal Standard
26
On a 12(b)(6) motion, the court must determine “whether the complaint’s factual
27
allegations, together with all reasonable inferences, state a plausible claim for relief.”
28
Cafasso, U.S. ex rel. v. Gen. Dynamics C4 Sys., 637 F.3d 1047, 1054 (9th Cir. 2011)
2
1
(citing Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009)). “The heightened pleading
2
standard of Rule 9(b) governs FCA claims.” Cafasso, 637 F.3d at 1054 (citing Bly-
3
Magee v. California, 236 F.3d 1014, 1018 (9th Cir. 2001)). “Rule 9(b) [of the Federal
4
Rules of Civil Procedure] provides that ‘[i]n alleging fraud or mistake, a party must state
5
with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake.’” Id. (citing Fed. R. Civ.
6
P. 9(b)). “To satisfy Rule 9(b), a pleading must identify ‘the who, what, when, where,
7
and how of the misconduct charged,’ as well as ‘what is false or misleading about [the
8
purportedly fraudulent] statement, and why it is false.’” Id. (citing Ebeid ex rel. United
9
States v. Lungwitz, 616 F.3d 993, 998 (9th Cir. 2010)).
10
Further, “claims of fraud or mistake ─ including FCA claims ─ must, in addition to
11
pleading with particularity, also plead plausible allegations [in accordance with Iqbal, 556
12
U.S. at 678-79].” Cafasso, 637 F.3d at 1055. “That is, the pleading must state ‘enough
13
fact[s] to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of [the
14
misconduct alleged].”
15
(2007) (brackets in Cafasso)).
Id. (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556
16
B.
Analysis
17
“The FCA was enacted during the Civil War with the purpose of forefending
18
widespread fraud by government contractors who were submitting inflated invoices and
19
shipping faulty goods to the government.” Ebeid, 616 F.3d at 995 (citing United States
20
ex rel. Hopper v. Anton, 91 F.3d 1261, 1265-66 (9th Cir. 1996)). “To encourage insiders
21
to disclose fraud and thereby bolster enforcement, the FCA contains a qui tam provision
22
that permits private persons (known as ‘relators’) to bring civil actions on behalf of the
23
United States and claim a portion of any award.” Ebeid, 616 F.3d at 995 (citing 31
24
U.S.C. § 3730(b), (d) (2008) and Anton, 91 F.3d at 1266 n.7).
25
The FCA “attaches liability, not to underlying fraudulent activity, but to the claim
26
for payment.” Anton, 91 F.3d at 1266 (citation and quotation marks omitted). “What
27
constitutes the FCA offense is the knowing presentation of a claim that is either
28
fraudulent or simply false.” Id.
3
1
“The archetypal qui tam FCA action is filed by an insider at a private company
2
who discovers his employer has overcharged under a government contract.” Anton, 91
3
F.3d at 1266 (citing United States ex rel. Green v. Northrop Corp., 59 F.3d 953 (9th Cir.
4
1995). “However, FCA actions have also been sustained under theories of supplying
5
substandard products or services (see, e.g., United States v. Aerodex, 469 F.2d 1003
6
(5th Cir. 1972)); false negotiation, including bid rigging and defective pricing (see, e.g.,
7
United States v. Ehrlich, 643 F.2d 634 (9th Cir. [1981]). . . ; and false certification (see,
8
e.g., United States v. Hibbs, 568 F.2d 347 (3d Cir. 1977)).” Anton, 91 F.3d at 1266.
9
1.
10
Presenting False Claims–31
357.040(1)(a)1
U.S.C.
§
3729(a)(1) and NRS
§
11
Section 3729(a)(1) prohibits knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, a
12
false or fraudulent claim for payment or approval to an officer or employee of the United
13
States. A relator may establish falsity under a theory of factual falsity or legal falsity.
14
Only factual falsity is at issue here. (See dkt. no. 28 at 13, n.2.) “In a run-of-the-mill
15
‘factually false’ case, proving falsehood is relatively straightforward: [a] relator must
16
generally show that the government payee has submitted an incorrect description of
17
goods or services provided or a request for reimbursement for goods or services never
18
provided.” U.S. ex rel. Conner v. Salina Reg’l Health Ctr., Inc., 543 F.3d 1211, 1217
19
(10th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
a.
20
False Statements
21
Defendants argue that the Complaint does not allege the sine qua non of a FCA
22
claim – that APS’ billing statements to Medicaid contained false information. The Court
23
agrees with Defendants regarding some of Relator’s allegations, but determines that
24
other allegations do in fact claim that APS submitted false claims to the government.
25
Therefore, Relator’s 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1) and NRS § 357.040(1)(a) claims survive
26
27
28
1
The parties agree that the Nevada FCA is virtually identical to the federal FCA,
and analyze the statutes jointly in their pleadings. The Court does the same.
4
1
Defendants’ Motion, but these claims may only proceed on the theories articulated
2
herein.
3
Several of Relator’s allegations do not relate to false invoices. These allegations
4
are either wholly unrelated to false claims submitted by APS to Medicaid, or involve an
5
alleged breach of APS’ contractual obligations with DHCFP rather than APS submitting
6
false claims to the agency. Cf. Cafasso, 637 F.3d at 1057 (“breach of contract claims
7
are not the same as fraudulent conduct claims . . . unsavory conduct is not, without
8
more, actionable under the FCA.”). These allegations are as follows:
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
APS contracted to receive compensation for its mailing and referral
services based upon the number of contacts made, up to a monthly limit of
$50,179.67. (Dkt. no. 2 at ¶ 8.) However, APS provided inadequate
disease management and care coordination services to certain persons
legitimately enrolled in the Program by only contacting clients by phone
once a month, regardless of the patients’ need. This resulted in incomplete
or non-existent patient assessments (dkt. no. 2 at ¶ 27);
APS failed to obtain verbal consent for certain patients enrolled in its fieldbased program, thus enrolling them against their will (id. at ¶ 13);
Medicaid patients were not enrolled on-site and were not assisted with
discharge planning as contractually required, but instead were
automatically enrolled without their consent. APS achieved this enrollment
from lists of inpatients which APS employees obtained from the Las Vegas
hospitals they serviced (id. at ¶ 21);
Relator witnessed instances of incomplete patient assessments resulting in
inadequate care plans (id. at ¶ 28);
APS was understaffed, which resulted in many cases sitting dormant for
months and patients not receiving services (id. at ¶ 29);
In order to manage APS’ case backlog, APS management un-enrolled
patients from disease management and care coordination services by
altering patients’ levels of acuity and decreasing their level of service to
receive mailings only. This allegedly resulted in hundreds of severely ill
patients receiving no or inadequate services (id. at ¶ 30);
Patients received out-of-date or inadequate telephone referral information
on the emergency contact line and other inadequate information regarding
their healthcare needs from APS (id. at ¶ 32-36).
26
These allegations all fail to allege the submission of false invoices.
27
generally fall into one of two camps: (1) allegations concerning sub-par medical services;
28
and (2) allegations that APS did not abide by its contractual obligations. The first set of
5
They
1
allegations – contained in paragraphs 13 and 32-36 – cannot state a viable FCA claim.
2
Relator cannot proceed on her 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1) or NRS § 357.040(1)(a) claims
3
based on these allegations. The second set of allegations also do not serve as a basis
4
for Relator’s federal or state FCA causes of action as currently pled. These allegations
5
demonstrate that APS did not fulfill its contractual obligations, but do not plead a nexus
6
between this failure and the submission of false claims. (See dkt. no. 2 at ¶¶ 21, 27-29,
7
30).
8
9
However, several of Relator’s allegations do relate to potentially false claims
submitted by APS to Medicaid:
Relator was asked to reassign case loads of departing APS employees.
Some of these cases had allegedly been inactive for months but Medicaid
was billed as if services were provided (id. at ¶ 31);
10
11
Many patients enrolled in the Program between July 2009 and December
2009 were never provided with any services, but APS continued to bill
Medicaid for months as if services had been provided to these patients on
a monthly basis (id. at ¶¶ 13-15, 21-22).2
12
13
14
Between at least September 2008 and fall 2009, APS had a policy of billing
Medicaid for “ghost patients.” Patients for whom APS representatives
could not contact were nonetheless entered into the Care Connection
computer program as successfully contacted, and that these patients were
enrolled in the Program “for mailings only.” APS billed Medicaid for these
patients as if they had actually consented and been enrolled in the
Program (id. at ¶¶ 23-25).
15
16
17
18
19
20
These allegations support the sine qua non of an FCA claim–that APS submitted
false claims to Medicaid by billing Medicaid for services not provided.
b.
21
Rule 9(b)
22
Although several of Relator’s allegations satisfactorily allege submission of a false
23
claim, see supra, Defendants assert that Relator has not pled these claims with the
24
particularity required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b). Defendants argue that Relator fails to
25
26
27
28
2
The allegations in paragraphs 3-15 and 21-22, when read together, support the
contention in the last bullet-point. Read individually, not all of these paragraphs make an
assertion regarding submission of billing statements. But taken together, they explain
how APS billed DHCFP for services not provided.
6
1
present the “who, what, when, where, and how” to adequately place APS on notice of
2
the specific fraudulent conduct for which they must defend. To this end, Defendants
3
assert that Relator fails to identify with particularity a single, specific instance of a
4
“service” that was billed to DHCFP which was not legally reimbursable.
5
Defendants concede that the Ninth Circuit does not require a relator to identify
6
every specific false claim on a motion to dismiss. (Dkt. no. 29 at 7.) In fact, a relator is
7
“not required to plead representative examples of false claims submitted to the
8
Government to support every allegation, but he must plead with sufficient particularity to
9
lead to a strong inference that false claims were actually submitted.” U.S. ex rel. Frazier
10
v. IASIS Healthcare Corp., 812 F. Supp. 2d 1008, 1012 (D. Ariz. 2011). However, a
11
relator must provide “reliable indicia” that could “lead to a strong inference that the
12
claims were actually submitted.” Id.
13
The allegations regarding the “ghost patients” are sufficiently particularized to
14
survive Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Relator pleads the timeframe in which such
15
enrollment occurred (September 2008 through fall 2009), names the APS supervisor
16
involved in instructing APS employees on such registration (supervisor Brooke Greenlee,
17
dkt. no. 2 at ¶ 24), and describes how the false claims were entered into the Care
18
Connection computer program. Accord ex rel. McCarthy, 140 F. Supp. 2d at 1068.
19
Defendants are incorrect that the Complaint lacks particularized facts concerning
20
whether the billing statements contained false statements.
21
regarding ghost patients specifically allege that APS billed Medicaid for telephone
22
services provided to patients who never in fact received such services. This is a false
23
claim. Moreover, although Relator does not describe how APS billed Medicaid for these
24
ghost patients, she does allege that the practice violated APS’ contract with NDHHS,
25
that APS discontinued the practice, and that APS was on an “action plan” with Medicaid
26
because of such registrations. This constitutes “reliable indicia” that the false claims
27
were submitted. See ex rel. Frazier, 812 F. Supp. 2d at 1012.
28
///
7
Rather, the allegations
1
Likewise, the allegations in paragraphs 13-15 and 21-22 (taken together, see
2
supra note 2) regarding APS’ submission of claims for services not rendered survive
3
Defendants’ Motion.
4
statements were submitted.
5
statements were stored – in the Care Connection computer program (dkt. no. 2 at ¶ 22).
6
Relator provides sufficient detail about what was contained in the false statements. That
7
is, APS made it seem as if patients were enrolled in the on-site programs and had
8
consented to being enrolled in the Program. But in reality, many of these patients were
9
not provided with any services. APS billed Medicaid for months as if services had been
10
provided to these patients. Relator also names Ms. Greenlee as the supervisor who
11
instructed her to enroll patients once enrolled in the on-site Program into the telephone
12
Program. (Id. at ¶ 15.) These allegations provide particularized facts sufficient to place
13
Defendants on notice of Relator’s allegation that between July and December 2009,
14
APS fraudulently billed Medicaid for patients whom did not receive any services.
Relator provides the approximate time frame that the false
She also describes the database in which the false
15
The allegations in paragraph 31 also support Relator’s FCA claims. The
16
allegations point to an incident in which Relator was asked to reassign the caseload of a
17
departed colleague, Ms. Gulseth. Relator alleges that she was instructed to discontinue
18
follow-up activity with Ms. Gulseth’s clients, and to enroll these clients in the monthly
19
mailing program. Relator also alleges that Ms. Greenlee instructed her to enter activity
20
into the case logs of Ms. Gulseth’s clients for the month of December to show that APS
21
had in fact interacted with a patient, and would bill Medicaid as if it had such an
22
interaction, even though no December interaction had occurred.
23
demonstrate the “who, what, and when” necessary to put Defendants on notice
24
regarding the specifics of their allegedly fraudulent conduct.
25
c.
These allegations
Materiality
26
Finally, Defendants argue that Relator fails to plead the element of materiality by
27
failing to allege that DHCFP would not have paid APS had it known about any of the
28
alleged contractual violations.
8
1
“The accepted definition of materiality for civil FCA claims, as for other federal
2
statutes, equates materiality with ‘ha[ving] a natural tendency to influence, or [being]
3
capable of influencing, the decision of the decisionmaking body to which it was
4
addressed.’” United States v. Southland Mgmt. Corp., 326 F.3d 669, 679 (5th Cir. 2003)
5
(en banc) (citing Kungys v. United States, 485 U.S. 759, 770 (1988)) (brackets in
6
Southland).
7
Regarding the “ghost patient” allegations, Defendants point to the fact that
8
DHCFP placed APS on an “action plan” as evidence that the agency knew about APS’
9
false claims but continued to compensate APS. They argue that Relator fails to allege
10
that APS was not entitled to continue submitting invoices while negotiating with DHCFP
11
regarding performance issues.
12
materiality, but she has certainly pled facts sufficient to demonstrate materiality. The
13
evidence of the “action plan” infers that DHCFP understood that APS was submitting at
14
least some false claims. But it is unclear from the Complaint whether or not DHCFP
15
continued to compensate APS for the “ghost patients” once it realized false claims were
16
submitted.3
17
patients did affect the DHCFP’s decision to compensate APS.
Defendants are correct that Relator has not proven
Therefore, it is plausible that the submission of claims for non-existent
18
The allegations in paragraphs 13-15 and 21-22, concerning APS’ fraudulent
19
billing for patients not receiving services, also satisfy the materiality requirement. It is
20
plausible that the government would not have compensated APS for Program services
21
not provided had DHCFP known that APS was not in fact providing services.
22
allegations in paragraph 31 are material for this reason as well.
The
23
For the reasons stated above, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Relator’s 31 U.S.C.
24
§ 3729(a)(1) and NRS § 357.040(1)(a) claims is denied. These claims may proceed on
25
26
27
28
3
The case cited by Defendants, Southland Mgmt., 326 F.3d at 679, is inapposite
as that case involved the appellate court affirming a motion for summary judgment, and
based much of its materiality discussion on evidence in the Southland record.
Comparable evidence in this case is simply not available to the Court at the motion to
dismiss stage.
9
1
Plaintiff’s allegations that APS fraudulently (1) billed Medicaid for patients not signed up
2
for the Program (see dkt. no. 2 at ¶¶ 23-25) and (2) billed Medicaid for services not
3
provided (see id. at ¶¶ 13-15, 21-22, 31). The claims may not proceed on a theory that
4
APS provided poor services to its patients. Nor may the claims proceed on a theory that
5
APS merely failed to meet its contractual obligations.
6
2.
7
Knowingly Presenting a False or Fraudulent Record–31 U.S.C. §
3729(a)(2) NRS § 357.040(1)(b)
8
Subsection (a)(2) “imposes liability on any person who ‘knowingly makes, uses, or
9
causes to be made or used, a sales record or statement to get a false or fraudulent claim
10
paid or approved by the Government.” Hopper v. Solvay Pharms., Inc., 588 F.3d 1318,
11
1327 (11th Cir. 2009). A plaintiff must show that “(1) the defendant made a false record
12
or statement for the purpose of getting a false claim paid or approved by the
13
government; and (2) the defendant’s false record or statement caused the government
14
to actually pay a false claim, either to the defendant itself, or to a third party.” Id. “The
15
primary distinction between a claim under section 2 and a claim under section 1 is that
16
section 2 requires an affirmative false statement. To provide any distinct meaning to
17
section 1 it is clear that no such express false statement is required.” United States ex
18
rel. Fallon v. Accudyne Corp., 921 F. Supp. 611, 627 (W.D. Wis. 1995).
19
Relator alleges that her supervisor asked her to misinform Mr. Whaley, a
20
representative of the state Medicaid program, about the functioning of field-based
21
enrollment programs in designated hospitals. The Court agrees with Defendants that the
22
Complaint fails to connect the allegedly false statements made to Mr. Whaley to any
23
submission of false claims. Relator has not alleged the existence of a false statement or
24
record distinct from an underlying false claim made for the purpose of getting a false
25
claim paid. The allegations concerning Mr. Whaley demonstrate that APS may have
26
failed to comply with its contractual obligations, and attempted to misinform Mr. Whaley
27
that it was in fact complying with its obligations. But, nowhere does the Complaint allege
28
that these misrepresentations were made in order to get a false claim paid or approved
10
1
by the government. The Complaint must make such an allegation to satisfy the
2
requirements of 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(2).
3
prejudice.4
4
IV.
This claim is therefore dismissed without
RETALIATION–31 U.S.C. § 3730(H) AND NRS § 357.240(2)5
5
A.
Legal Standard
6
The heightened pleading standard articulated in Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b) is not
7
applicable to Relator’s retaliation claims. Rather, the notice pleading requirements of
8
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) apply to these claims. Mendiondo v. Centinela Hosp. Med. Ctr., 521
9
F.3d 1097, 1102 (9th Cir. 2008).
10
“A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows
11
the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct
12
alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556
13
(2007)).
14
When determining the sufficiency of a claim, “[w]e accept factual allegations in the
15
complaint as true and construe the pleadings in the light most favorable to the non-
16
moving party[; however, this tenet does not apply to] . . . legal conclusions . . . cast in the
17
form of factual allegations.” Fayer v. Vaughn, 649 F.3d 1061, 1064 (9th Cir. 2011)
18
(citation and internal quotation marks omitted). “Therefore, conclusory allegations of law
19
and unwarranted inferences are insufficient to defeat a motion to dismiss.” Id. (citation
20
and internal quotation marks omitted); see also Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly,
21
550 U.S. at 555) (“A pleading that offers ‘labels and conclusions’ or ‘a formulaic
22
recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.’”).
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
The only allegations appearing to give rise to a potential § 3729(a)(2) claim are
those concerning APS’ interaction with Mr. Whaley. Save this allegation, Relator fails to
allege the existence of specific false records or statements made for the purpose of
influencing the government’s decision to pay a false claim. See Hopper, 588 F.3d at
1327.
5
The Nevada FCA retaliation statute is substantially similar to the federal statute,
and the Court accordingly analyzes Relator’s claims under the two statutes jointly for the
purposes of this Motion.
11
1
B.
Analysis
2
“Congress added 31 U.S.C. § 3730(h) to the FCA in 1986 to protect
3
‘whistleblowers,’ those who come forward with evidence their employer is defrauding the
4
government, from retaliation by their employer.” Anton, 91 F.3d at 1269. The statute
5
contains three elements: “1) the employee must have been engaging in conduct
6
protected under the Act; 2) the employer must have known that the employee was
7
engaging in such conduct; and 3) the employer must have discriminated against the
8
employee because of her protected conduct.” Id.
9
Regarding element 1, “the plaintiff must be investigating matters which are
10
calculated, or reasonably could lead, to a viable FCA action.” Anton, 91 F.3d at 1269.
11
Defendants argue that Relator merely took efforts to cause APS to comply with her
12
understanding of APS’ Medicaid contract (dkt. no. 18 at 24), and that the Complaint fails
13
to adequately plead a nexus between Relator’s investigation and an FCA violation. The
14
Court disagrees. Though Relator has not proven that her investigation was directly
15
related to potential fraud, the allegations taken together allege that Relator investigated
16
matters which she reasonably believed could amount to a false claim or which could
17
reasonably lead to a viable FCA action. Accord LeVine v. Weis, 90 Cal. App. 4th 201,
18
209-10 (2001) (under the retaliation provision of the False Claims Act, “[p]laintiff . . .
19
need only show that he had reasonably based suspicions of a false claim”).
20
example, she inquired about the legality of the “ghost patient” program, and raised
21
concerns about the program to her supervisors.
22
“[i]nvestigation into an employer’s noncompliance with state or federal regulations is
23
insufficient to state a claim for retaliation under the FCA[,]” Brazill v. California Northstate
24
Coll. of Pharm., LLC, No. 2:12-1218, 2012 WL 3204241, at *5 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 2, 2012),
25
the Complaint taken as a whole adequately alleges that Relator’s inquiries about the
26
legality of the program were related to matters that could reasonably lead to a viable
27
FCA action. She inquired about APS’ policy of billing non-existent “ghost patients,” (dkt.
28
no. 2 at ¶ 24), and about its policy of not providing services to hundreds of patients (id. at
12
(Dkt. no. 2 at ¶ 24.)
For
And while
1
¶ 31). (See also id. at ¶ 37: Relator spoke with her supervisors about APS’ “referral
2
practices.”) She also alleges that she entered data into the Care Connection program
3
about these services not rendered, and the Complaint when read as a whole makes it
4
clear that this documentation may have formed the basis for APS’ fraudulent billing of
5
DHCFP. (See dkt. no. 2 at ¶ 22.)
6
Element 2 is also satisfied for the purposes of this Motion because Relator pleads
7
that she spoke directly to APS employees and supervisors about her concerns regarding
8
the Program. (See, e.g., dkt. no. 2 at ¶ 24.)
9
Defendants argue that Relator has failed to plead facts sufficient to satisfy
10
element 3 – that APS discriminated against Relator because she engaged in protected
11
conduct. “[A]n action may be cognizable as discrimination under the False Claims Act . .
12
. if it is reasonably likely to deter employees from engaging in activity protected under
13
either of these statutes.” Moore v. Cal. Inst. of Tech. Jet Propulsion Lab., 275 F.3d 838,
14
848 (9th Cir. 2002). The Complaint details how Relator experienced workplace taunts
15
and was assigned retaliatory tasks after she raised concerns regarding APS’ failure to
16
provide services to patients signed up for the Program (among other concerns). (Dkt.
17
no. 2 at ¶ 37-39.) These allegations describe behavior on APS’ part which is reasonably
18
likely to deter employees from raising concerns about a potential FCA violation. See
19
Moore, 275 F.3d at 848.
For these reasons, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Relator’s retaliation causes of
20
21
action fails.
22
V.
23
24
25
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (dkt. no. 18) is
GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows:
Defendants’ Motion is DENIED as it relates to Relator’s 31 U.S.C. §
26
3729(a)(1) and NRS § 357.040(1)(a) causes of action.
27
proceed on these causes of action only under the theories described
28
supra;
13
Relator may
1
Defendants’ Motion is GRANTED as it relates to Relator’s 31 U.S.C. §
2
3729(a)(2) NRS § 357.040(1)(b) claims. Those claims are DISMISSED
3
WITHOUT PREJUDICE;
4
Defendants’ Motion is DENIED in all other respects.
5
6
DATED THIS 30th day of January, 2013.
7
8
9
MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
14
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?