Negative Reference by Employed Doc Not a Breach of Resignation Agreement
The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed a district court’s decision to grant a hospital’s motion for summary judgment in a suit filed by a former employed physician. The physician alleged breach of contract and promissory estoppel, claiming that the hospital provided a negative employment reference in violation of the parties’ resignation agreement, which stipulated neutral references limited to dates of employment. However, the district court found that the physician who provided the reference, although employed by the hospital, was not the physician’s supervisor at the time of his resignation, and the agreement did not obligate the hospital to prevent its employees from providing references in their personal capacities. Cauley v. Geisinger Clinic
No Double Dipping for Qui Tam Relator
The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida dismissed a relator’s second qui tam action alleging that his former employer’s Medicare claims submission process violated the False Claims Act (“FCA”). The court dismissed the relator’s claims, in part, based on the FCA’s first-to-file rule, which prohibits a qui tam suit based on facts underlying a pending action. Given that the dismissal of the relator’s first qui tam action was pending appeal and his second action pertained to the conduct alleged in the first, the court concluded that the FCA’s first-to-file rule precluded the second case. U.S. ex rel. Olhausen v. Arriva Med.
Proactive Refund Doesn’t Preclude Standing for Qui Tam Relator
The United States District Court for the Northern District of California denied a medical management group’s motion to dismiss an emergency services group’s complaint, which alleged fraudulent billing practices. Specifically, the group alleged that the company pressured providers to chart for critical care services even though the threshold for such services was not met. The relator also alleged that the company “upcoded” non-critical care to a higher level of care. The court found that relator pled its claims with the requisite particularity required for fraud claims. The court rejected the company’s assertion that the group lacked standing because the company refunded the government prior to learning about the filed qui tam action, finding that proactive refunds do not necessarily negate relator’s standing. Kenley Emergency Medicine v. Schumacher Grp. of LA, Inc.
Same News, Different Day: COVID Vaccine Religious Exemption Lawsuit Dismissed
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York dismissed a Title VII claim brought by a pharmacist and administrative assistant against a hospital which had denied their request for a religious exemption from its COVID-19 vaccination policy. In dismissing their claim, the court noted that granting their religious exemption to the COVID-19 vaccine mandate would have caused the hospital an undue hardship, in part because it would have forced the hospital to violate New York law, which permitted medical exemptions only and did not allow for religious exemptions. The court also held that the requested accommodations to work remotely would have created an undue hardship for the hospital because it would have required it to find replacements to perform in-person duties. Haczynska v. Mt. Sinai Health Sys., Inc.