810 F. Supp. 2d 340
D. Me.2011Background
- Jewell worked as a Service Technician for Lincare, Oct 2008–Nov 16, 2009.
- He observed forged client signatures and backdated documents in MacKenzie’s possession.
- Jewell reported the misconduct to his supervisor, McGraw.
- MacKenzie began retaliating against Jewell after learning of the reports.
- Jewell alleges the termination on Nov 16, 2009 was pretextual and retaliatory.
- Jewell filed suit May 12, 2011 asserting FCA retaliation (Count I) and state-law claims (Counts II).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Jewell plead protected conduct under FCA | Jewell's investigations/ complaints concerned fraudulent billing | Protected conduct not shown as he did not report fraud-on-government | Plaintiff pleads protected conduct plausibly |
| Whether Lincare knew Jewell engaged in protected conduct | McGraw knew of Jewell's reports of forged/backdated docs | Asserts lack of protected conduct negates knowledge | Knowledge adequately alleged against Lincare, especially McGraw |
| Whether Jewell was terminated because of protected conduct | Termination proximate to protected activity; pretextual HazMat claim | Termination based on allegedly unfinished HazMat paperwork | Causation plausibly alleged; retaliation claim survives |
Key Cases Cited
- Karvelas v. Melrose-Wakefield Hosp., 360 F.3d 220 (1st Cir. 2004) (protected conduct scope under FCA)
- Gargano v. Liberty Int'l Underwriters, Inc., 572 F.3d 45 (1st Cir. 2009) (pleading standards for federal claims)
- Gobble v. Forest Labs., Inc., 729 F. Supp. 2d 446 (D. Mass. 2010) (definition of protected conduct under FCA)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility standard for pleading claims)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading standard requiring plausible claims)
- Allison Engine Co., Inc. v. U.S. ex rel. Sanders, 553 U.S. 662 (2008) (context of FCA pleading standards)