Mason et al v. Health Management Associates, Inc. et al

Filing 182

ORDER The 142 Motion to Determine the Sufficiency of Responses to Plaintiffs First Set of Requests for Admission by the HMA Defendants and 146 Plaintiffs Motion to Determine the Sufficiency of Responses to Plaintiffs First Set of Requests for Admission by the Emcare Defendants are denied. The 151 Motion to Compel Further Responses to First Set of Interrogatories from Plaintiffs is granted as set forth therein. The 137 Motion for a Protective Order and to Quash Sub poenas, 140 Motion to Compel Discovery from the HMA Defendants, 144 Motion to Compel Discovery from the Emcare Defendants, 153 Motion for Protective Order and 174 Motion for a Protective Order and to Quash Subpoenas are granted in part and de nied in part, consistent with that scope of discovery; where Plaintiffs discovery requests seek information beyond that scope, Defendants Motions to Quash and for Protective Orders are granted; where Plaintiffs are attempting to conduct discovery wit hin that scope, their Motions to Compel are granted; defendants shall serve discovery responses narrowed to that scope within thirty days from this Order; otherwise, those Motions are denied. Signed by Magistrate Judge David S. Cayer on 9/28/2020. (mek)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:10-CV-00472-KDB-DSC
THOMAS L. MASON M.D. et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
HEALTH MANAGEMENT
ASSOCIATES LLC et. al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on the following Motions:
1. “HMA Defendants’ Motion for a Protective Order and to Quash Subpoenas” (document
#137);
2. “Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Discovery from the HMA Defendants” (document
#140);
3. “Plaintiffs’ Motion to Determine the Sufficiency of Responses to Plaintiffs’ First Set
of Requests for Admission by the HMA Defendants” (document #142);
4. “Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Discovery from the Emcare Defendants” (document
#144);
5.

“Plaintiffs’ Motion to Determine the Sufficiency of Responses to Plaintiffs’ First Set
of Requests for Admission by the Emcare Defendants” (document #146);

6. “Defendants Emcare Inc., Emcare Holdings Inc., Emergency Medical Services L.P.,
and Envision Corporations’ Motion to Compel Further Responses to First Set of
Interrogatories from Plaintiffs” (document #151);
7. “Defendants Emcare Inc., Emcare Holdings Inc., Emergency Medical Services L.P.,
and Envision Healthcare Corporations’ Motion for Protective Order” (document #153);
and
8. “HMA Defendants’ Motion for a Protective Order and to Quash Subpoenas to Ronald
L. Riner M.D. and the Riner Group Inc., Piotr Galaska M.D., Dale Armour, Stanley
Mclemore, Kelly E. Curry, Lynn West and Paul Meyer” (document #174), as well as
the parties briefs and exhibits.
The Court has carefully reviewed the Motions, the record and the authorities. Accepting
the factual allegations of the Complaint as true, Plaintiff Mid-Atlantic Emergency Medical
Associates PLLC (“MEMA”) is a North Carolina professional corporation that provides
emergency room services under professional services agreements with hospitals in the Charlotte
area. MEMA physicians provided ER coverage under these agreements with two hospitals then
owned and operated by Defendant Health Management Associates LLC f/k/a Health Management
Associates Inc. (“HMA”): Davis Regional Medical Center (“Davis Hospital”) beginning
November 1, 2000 and Lake Norman Regional Medical Center (“Lake Norman Hospital”)
beginning July 1, 1996. HMA terminated MEMA’s contracts with those hospitals on May 3, 2010.
Plaintiffs Mason and Folstad are the principals in MEMA and board certified emergency
medicine physicians. Mason served as ER Director and member of the Medical Executive
Committee at Lake Norman Hospital from 1997 to 2010. He also served as the hospital’s Chief

of Staff. Folstad served as ER Director at Davis Hospital until 2008 when he became MEMA’s
CEO.
Plaintiffs allege that HMA terminated their contracts in retaliation for their refusal to
participate in a scheme to submit false claims to Medicare, Medicaid and other government funded
healthcare programs. Plaintiffs complained about and attempted to stop the fraudulent activity.
HMA replaced Plaintiffs’ ER services with those provided by the EmCare Defendants. HMA and
EmCare made false statements about the quality of Plaintiffs’ medical care. EmCare agreed to
participate in HMA’s false claims scheme if they were awarded the ER contracts.
Plaintiffs originally brought this action as qui tam relators on their own behalf and on behalf
of the United States and the states of North Carolina, Florida, Georgia, Oklahoma, Tennessee and
Texas against HMA and EmCare for violations of the federal False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3730
et. seq., (“FCA”) and parallel state statutes. In December 2017, EmCare paid $33 million to settle
government claims. In September 2018, HMA and its successor in interest paid $262 million to
settle government claims, of which $74.5 million arose from ER fraud and $8.96 million related
to its relationship with EmCare.
On April 26, 2019, Plaintiffs filed their Third Severed Amended Complaint which contains
their remaining claims for FCA retaliation, defamation, and slander per se against the HMA
Defendants only, as well as claims for tortious interference with a contractual relationship, unfair
and deceptive trade practices, and civil conspiracy against all Defendants.
For the reasons stated in Defendants’ briefs, “Plaintiffs’ Motion to Determine the
Sufficiency of Responses to Plaintiffs’ First Set of Requests for Admission by the HMA
Defendants” (document #142) and “Plaintiffs’ Motion to Determine the Sufficiency of Responses

to Plaintiffs’ First Set of Requests for Admission by the Emcare Defendants” (document #146) are
denied.
For the reasons stated in their briefs, “Defendants Emcare Inc., Emcare Holdings Inc.,
Emergency Medical Services L.P., and Envision Corporations’ Motion to Compel Further
Responses to First Set of Interrogatories from Plaintiffs” (document #151) is granted. Within
thirty days of this Order, Plaintiffs shall serve complete supplemental responses to EmCare
Defendants’ First Set of Interrogatories, Interrogatory Numbers 2-4, 6-10, 12-19, 24, and 28.
Plaintiffs’ objections to those Interrogatories are overruled. Plaintiffs shall not rely on Rule 33(d)
when responding.
The remaining Motions address the scope of discovery. As Defendants argue in their briefs,
Plaintiffs are attempting to conduct discovery concerning the national FCA investigation and
settlement involving more than sixty hospitals. The Court finds that scope to be disproportionate
to the needs of this case.
The appropriate scope of discovery here is whether Plaintiffs participated in protected
activities at Lake Norman Hospital and Davis Hospital, whether Defendants had knowledge of
those activities, and whether Defendants wrongfully terminated Plaintiffs’ contracts with those
hospitals.
Accordingly, the remaining Motions (documents ##137, 140, 144, 153 and 174) are each
granted in part and denied in part consistent with that scope of discovery.

Where Plaintiffs’

discovery requests seek information beyond that scope, Defendants’ Motions to Quash and for
Protective Orders are granted. Where Plaintiffs are attempting to conduct discovery within that

scope, their Motions to Compel are granted. Defendants shall serve discovery responses narrowed
to that scope within thirty days from this Order. Otherwise, those Motions are denied.
The parties shall bear their own costs at this time.
The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to counsel for the parties and to the
Honorable Kenneth D. Bell.
SO ORDERED.

Signed: September 28, 2020