Elkharwily v. Mayo Holding Co. (Summary)

FALSE CLAIMS ACT/RETALIATION

Elkharwily v. Mayo Holding Co., Civil No. 12-3062 (DSD/JJK) (D. Minn. Feb. 5, 2015)

The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota dismissed a hospitalist’s False Claims Act (“FCA”) claim against a hospital, holding that the hospitalist was not engaged in a protected activity or that any fraud existed. After three months, the hospital terminated the hospitalist’s employment due to concerns about patient safety and his reliability. After accusing the hospital of blackmail and intimidation, the hospitalist brought suit, claiming that he was terminated in retaliation for reporting systemic fraud and malpractice in violation of the FCA. The hospitalist alleged that he informed the hospital that he did not agree with the emergency room doctors’ admission of patients; specifically, that they were unnecessarily admitted or coded incorrectly.

The court held that the hospitalist’s complaints did not rise to the level of a protected activity or that any fraud actually existed. The court stated that the hospitalist had failed to prove that any fraud occurred besides his own allegations. The hospitalist admitted that he had never seen the patients’ billing records or knew that a fraudulent bill was ever sent to Medicare or Medicaid for payment. Furthermore, the hospitalist never made any complaints to notify the hospital of actions taken in furtherance of an FCA claim. The court explained that any of the hospitalist’s alleged reports would be considered generalized grievances and fall short of allegations of fraud against the government. Thus, he could not be retaliated against.