Jones-McNamara v. Holzer Health Sys., Inc. (Summary)

Jones-McNamara v. Holzer Health Sys., Inc., No. 2:13-cv-616 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 28, 2014)

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio denied defendant hospital’s motion for judgment on a former employee’s False Claims Act (“FCA”) retaliatory discharge claim.

In May 2010, plaintiff, a former compliance officer, began investigating conduct that she believed resulted in improper and fraudulent claims being submitted in violation of the FCA.  She sent a memorandum complaining of such conduct and advised that reimbursement checks be sent to the government.  In response, the compliance officer allegedly was instructed not to talk to her informant again, not to reduce her findings and analyses to writing, and not to work with anyone in her investigations except for outside counsel in order to create the appearance that the attorney-client privilege covered any materials involved in the work.  In June 2010, the compliance officer was terminated from her position and she sued, claiming retaliatory discharge.

In denying the hospital’s motion for judgment, the court held that a plaintiff is not required to bring or further a qui tam FCA case against a defendant in order to gain protection under the FCA’s retaliation provision.  Instead, the current retaliation provision affords broad coverage to employees by protecting them from being fired for (1) conduct that is in furtherance of an FCA action, as well as (2) other efforts to stop violations of the FCA (including internal reporting of FCA violations).  As a result, the court found it inappropriate to dismiss the former compliance officer’s claim because her investigation and disclosure of conduct in potential violation of the FCA satisfied the second prong and, as a result, was protected.