Ickes v. Nexcare Health Systems, L.L.C.
178 F. Supp. 3d 578
E.D. Mich.2016Background
- Ickes, a licensed physical therapist employed by Integrity Rehab Services, worked at South Lyon nursing home where NexCare provided management and compliance oversight; companies shared offices, some owners, and intertwined operations.
- From 2008–2013, Ickes learned (from co-workers, patients, an elder-law attorney, and an ombudsman) that South Lyon staff were telling Medicare Part A patients that "no long-term beds were available," a practice she believed violated federal rules for dually certified beds.
- Ickes repeatedly raised these compliance concerns to Integrity and NexCare managers (meetings and emails in Aug–Sept 2012); after initial assurances the practice would stop, incidents recurred in fall 2012 and January 2013.
- On January 9, 2013, South Lyon administrator Berryman angrily confronted therapists about advising patients; Ickes was singled out, suspended the next day, and terminated by Integrity on January 17, 2013.
- Ickes sued under the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3730(h) (retaliation) and, alternatively, for tortious interference with an economic expectancy; defendants moved for summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether NexCare and South Lyon are proper defendants under FCA § 3730(h) | Ickes contends § 3730(h) protects contractors/agents; NexCare and South Lyon acted as employers/joint employers/alter egos of Integrity | Defendants argue only Integrity (Ickes' nominal employer) is proper defendant | Court: Defendants may be liable under § 3730(h) and common-law joint-employer/alter-ego theories; triable issues exist |
| Whether Ickes engaged in protected activity under § 3730(h) | Ickes claims she reasonably believed the facility was violating FCA-related rules and sought to stop violations | Defendants say alleged violations relate to conditions of participation (not payment) and Ickes lacked good-faith basis | Court: Ickes engaged in protected activity; she had a reasonable, good-faith belief and need not prove a meritorious FCA claim |
| Causation for retaliation (prima facie case) | Ickes argues termination followed her protected complaints and meeting where she was singled out | Defendants claim legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons (insubordination, rudeness, acting outside scope) and dispute causation | Court: Ickes established prima facie causation and raised factual disputes on defendants' proffered reasons and pretext; FCA retaliation claim survives summary judgment |
| Tortious interference (alternative) | Ickes contends South Lyon and NexCare intentionally interfered with her employment expectancy with Integrity | Defendants claim lack of third-party malice and that conduct was lawful or justified | Court: Claim dismissed as to NexCare (no sufficient evidence of malice); claim survives as to South Lyon based on factual disputes about Berryman's conduct and motive |
Key Cases Cited
- Villegas v. Metro. Gov’t of Nashville, 709 F.3d 563 (6th Cir. 2013) (summary judgment standard)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment and inferences)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (movant’s initial burden on summary judgment)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (materiality and genuine issue standard)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (burden-shifting framework for discrimination/retaliation)
- Jones-McNamara v. Holzer Health Sys., [citation="630 F. App'x 394"] (6th Cir. 2015) (FCA § 3730(h) retaliation standards)