Defendant May Have Done Something Skeezy But that Doesn’t Mean They Violated the FCA

Plaintiffs alleged they had been terminated in violation of the FCA’s retaliation provision. But the plaintiffs had not shown a nexus between their allegedly protected conduct and an FCA violation. The plaintiffs may have attempted to prevent unethical conduct, but this unethical conduct was not connected to the submission of a false claim.

Hall v. Abington Memorial Hospital, E.D. Pa. No 22-2429

• Alleged FCA Violation – Two former employees of a Sleep Center sued their former employer. They alleged their employer fired them in violation of the FCA’s retaliation provision. They contended their employer had used recalled equipment. They alleged they had been fired for telling the employer not to use the equipment. They said use of the equipment had resulted in the employer submitting false Medicare claims.

• Failure to State a Claim – An FCA retaliation claim requires some nexus between the plaintiff’s actions and the FCA violation. Here, the plaintiffs had not made that connection. They had attempted to stop use of the recalled equipment. But they had not shown how their efforts would’ve prevented the employer from submitting false claims. They had not shown the employer violated any rule from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services that required a sleep center to stop using recalled equipment. It was not clear the government would have refused Medicare reimbursement if it knew of the equipment.

–Case summary by Craig LaChance, Senior Editor

[pdf-embedder url=”https://staging.pub-k.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/FCA-Hall-v.-Abington.pdf” title=”FCA – Hall v. Abington”]