Tibor v. Mich. Orthopaedic Inst. (Summary)

FALSE CLAIMS ACT

Tibor v. Mich. Orthopaedic Inst., No. 14-10920 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 5, 2014)

fulltextA federal district court in Michigan denied a motion to dismiss a surgeon’s claim of retaliation under the False Claims Act (“FCA”). The court found that the surgeon alleged sufficient facts to state a claim that she engaged in protected activity by voicing concerns about a proposed contract’s compliance with the Stark law and the FCA, and that her employment was terminated in retaliation for that protected activity.

Plaintiff was an orthopedic surgeon who was recruited to work at defendants, an orthopedic group and its primary hospital. The surgeon began to work at the group before her contract was finalized. After six weeks, the surgeon received her finalized contract, but two issues concerned her. The contract was back dated six weeks and contained a clause stating that the group would not compete in the imaging market and would refer patients exclusively to the hospital. The surgeon informed both the group and hospital that she believed that these provisions were a potential violation of the Stark law and the FCA. The group terminated the surgeon after she refused to sign the contract. The surgeon brought suit claiming that she was retaliated against for trying to prevent FCA violations.

Both the hospital and group brought a motion to dismiss arguing that the surgeon never engaged in a protected activity. Also, the hospital argued that the surgeon was not a hospital employee, and thus could not bring a retaliation action against it.

The court denied both motions and allowed the surgeon’s claim to proceed. The court found that the surgeon participated in a protected activity because her actions in raising concerns about the contract were an effort to stop a violation of the FCA. Also, the court denied the hospital’s argument that the surgeon could not bring a retaliation claim against it because she was not a hospital employee. The court stated that the FCA retaliation provision not only protects employees, but also independent contractors, such as the surgeon.