Boggs v. Bright Smile Family Dentistry PLC
5:10-cv-00025
W.D. Okla.Feb 17, 2012Background
- Relators Boggs and Borden filed an Amended Complaint under the False Claims Act (Counts I–IV) and Oklahoma FCA (Count V).
- Defendants Bright Smile defendants and Abou-Nassar moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
- Amended Complaint alleges inducement coupons and $15 gas cards linked to SoonerCare, with referrals among Bright Smiles entities and asserted non-registration of independent physicians/entities.
- Allegations describe a scheme involving coupons and transportation promises at multiple Bright Smile locations, with SoonerCare billing and payments at each visit described for a child named Ty Borden.
- Court applied plausibility pleading standard (Ridge at Red Hawk) and allowed inquiry under Rule 9(b) for fraud, considering documents referenced in the complaint.
- Court denied the motions to dismiss, holding the Amended Complaint states plausible claims; summary judgment may be appropriate after discovery.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether FCA claims are plausibly pled | Relators claim actionable false claims and inducements under FCA standards. | Allegations are mere recitation of elements, not plausible facts; OIG opinions control. | Plausible claims: not dismissed at this stage. |
| Whether fraud claims meet Rule 9(b) particularity | Relators plead specific instances (Ty Borden) with time, place, and beneficiaries. | No adequate particularity across all fraudulent conduct. | Sufficient specificity to proceed; not dismissed under Rule 9(b). |
| Impact of OIG advisory opinions on plausibility | OIG opinions offer persuasive, not controlling, guidance against dismissal. | OIG opinions support dismissal or narrowing of claims. | OIG opinions not determinative; claims remain plausible. |
| Whether discovery is premature for ruling on dismissal | Discovery may reveal more facts supporting relief. | Rule 12(b)(6) tests should resolve early; facts insufficient. | Case not ripe for summary judgment; dismissal denied at this stage. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ridge at Red Hawk, L.L.C. v. Schneider, 493 F.3d 1174 (10th Cir. 2007) (plausibility standard for surviving a Rule 12(b)(6) motion)
- Robbins v. Oklahoma ex rel. Dept. of Human Services, 519 F.3d 1242 (10th Cir. 2008) (allegations must be presumed true for dismissal analysis)
- Pace v. Swerdlow, 519 F.3d 1067 (10th Cir. 2008) (documents referenced in complaint may be considered)
- Koch v. Koch Indus., 203 F.3d 1202 (10th Cir. 2000) (fraud allegations must include time, place, content of the misrepresentation)