United States of America v. True Health Diagnostics, LLC
4:16-cv-00547
| E.D. Tex. | May 30, 2025Background
- This case arises from a False Claims Act (FCA) lawsuit brought by qui tam relator STF, LLC against True Health Diagnostics, LLC and others, including Dr. Sam Fillingane, alleging illegal kickbacks and submission of unnecessary medical test claims.
- Dr. Fillingane was True Health's Chair and Director of Medical Education, allegedly leading kickback schemes by paying physicians through "sham" advisory board fees and monthly phone consultations.
- The Relator alleges violations of the FCA, the Anti-Kickback Statute (AKS), and multiple state false claims acts, primarily citing Fillingane’s role in orchestrating these schemes.
- The Government intervened in the suit as to some defendants, but not as to Fillingane.
- Fillingane filed a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to meet Rule 9(b)'s heightened pleading standards for fraud, arguing that specific facts regarding his personal conduct were lacking.
- The Court granted Fillingane's motion to dismiss but also permitted the relator to amend its complaint to cure the pleading deficiencies.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the Complaint plead FCA/AKS violations with sufficient detail? | Complaint provides sufficient detail collectively and as a whole | Complaint only makes general, conclusory allegations against him | No; specific facts re: Fillingane’s conduct were insufficient |
| Can allegations against all defendants be attributed to Fillingane? | Specific and general allegations together show his involvement | Complaint impermissibly "lumps" all defendants together | No; specific conduct for each defendant is required |
| Does lack of specific, knowing conduct warrant dismissal? | Adequate facts are in the Complaint or can be inferred | No factual allegations that he knowingly submitted false claims | Yes; Complaint lacks facts suggesting knowing misconduct |
| Should leave to amend be granted? | Request to amend if deficiencies are found | No objection to amendment stated | Yes; leave to amend is granted |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading must raise right to relief above speculative level)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (complaints must state plausible claims, not mere conclusions)
- U.S. ex rel. Williams v. Bell Helicopter Textron Inc., 417 F.3d 450 (FCA claims must meet Rule 9(b) specificity)
- Grubbs v. Kanneganti, 565 F.3d 180 (FCA pleadings need details or reliable indicia that false claims were submitted)
- United States ex rel. Thompson v. Columbia/HCA Healthcare Corp., 125 F.3d 899 (Rule 9(b) requires specifics of fraud – who, what, when, where, how)