UNITED STATES EX REL. Linda DONEGAN, as Administrator of the Estate of John Timothy Donegan Relator-Appellant v. ANESTHESIA ASSOCIATES OF KANSAS CITY, PC, Defendant-Appellee United States of America, Amicus Curiae
No. 15-2420
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
August 12, 2016
Submitted: February 10, 2016
Thomas B. Weaver, Armstrong Teasdale LLP, St. Louis, MO, argued (Casey O. Housley, Megan J. Ochs, Kevin W. Prewitt, Armstrong Teasdale LLP, Kansas City, MO, on the brief), for appellee.
Jeffrey E. Sandberg, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Civ. Div., Washington, DC, argued (Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Asst. Atty. Gen., Michael S. Raab, Tara S. Morrissey, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Civ. Div., Washington, DC, Tammy Dickinson, U.S. Atty., Kansas City, MO, on the brief), for amicus curiae United States of America, in support of neither party.
Before RILEY, Chief Judge, LOKEN and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
LOKEN, Circuit Judge.
John Timothy Donegan, a Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetist (“CRNA“), commenced this qui tam action under the False Claims Act (“FCA“),
Donegan alleged that his former employer, Anesthesia Associates of Kansas City, P.C. (“AAKC“), violated
I. The “Emergence” Claim.
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (“CMS“), part of the Department of Health and Human Services, administers the Medicare and Medicaid programs.
(1) For each patient, the physician—
(i) Performs a pre-anesthetic examination and evaluation;
(ii) Prescribes the anesthesia plan;
(iii) Personally participates in the most demanding aspects of the anesthesia plan including, if applicable, induction and emergence;
(iv) Ensures that any procedures in the anesthesia plan that he or she does not perform are performed by a qualified individual as defined in operating instructions;
(v) Monitors the course of anesthesia administration at frequent intervals;
(vi) Remains physically present and available for immediate diagnosis and treatment of emergencies; and
(vii) Provides indicated post-anesthesia care.
AAKC employed CRNA Donegan at Menorah Medical Center (“MMC“) in Overland Park, Kansas, from 2006 until January 2012. In MMC surgeries, the CRNA stays in the operating room with the patient throughout the procedure. The anesthesiologist concurrently directs or supervises anesthesia services in up to four operating rooms. MMC‘s practice is consistent with reimbursement for Medical Direction, provided its anesthesiologists comply with the required seven steps.
This appeal turns on compliance with “Step Three,” which requires that the anesthesiologist “[p]ersonally participates in the most demanding aspects of the anesthesia plan including, if applicable, induction and emergence.
Donegan‘s detailed FCA Amended Complaint alleged that AAKC failed to comply with Step Three of the Medical Direction requirements because its anesthesiologists were “virtually never present with patients during ‘emergence,‘” alleging that “the broadest definition of ‘emergence’ is that it ends when the patient is turned over to the PACU staff. Relator claimed that AAKC knowingly violated the FCA by seeking reimbursement at the Medical Direction rate despite its noncompliance with this regulatory requirement.
After extensive discovery, the parties filed cross motions for summary judgment. The district court granted AAKC summary judgment, concluding that Relator cannot establish that AAKC submitted knowingly false or fraudulent claims because (i) the term “emergence” in Step Three of the regulation has not been defined by CMS and is ambiguous; (ii) AAKC‘s definition of “emergence” as a process that includes the patient‘s recovery time in the PACU was objectively reasonable; and (iii) AAKC‘s reasonable interpretation of the ambiguous regulation “belies the scienter necessary to establish a claim of fraud under the FCA,” quoting United States ex rel. Ketroser v. Mayo Found., 729 F.3d 825, 832 (8th Cir. 2013).
On appeal, Relator challenges all three components of the district court‘s analysis.
We review the grant of summary judgment in FCA cases de novo, evaluating “whether the record, viewed in a light most favorable to the non-moving party, shows that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Schell v. Bluebird Media, LLC, 787 F.3d 1179, 1184 (8th Cir. 2015) (quotation omitted). The issue is whether Relator submitted sufficient evidence that AAKC‘s alleged practice of billing at the Medical Direction rate when the anesthesiologist did not participate in emergence in the operating room “constituted the knowing submission of a false or fraudulent claim or statement within the meaning of
1. The brief of the United States as amicus curiae confirms what the district court observed: “CMS has not issued guidance on the meaning of the term emergence in Step Three of the Medical Direction regulation,
In support of its contrary argument, Relator relies heavily on our decision in Minn. Ass‘n of Nurse Anesthetists v. Allina Health Sys. Corp., 276 F.3d 1032, 1056 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 944 (2002) (“Allina“). In that case, we reversed the grant of summary judgment on the relators’ Medical Direction claim because there was a material fact dispute whether defendant anesthesiologists participated in emergence. The issue addressed in our Allina opinion was the proper interpretation of the term emergence in the regulation. Here, the question is whether AAKC‘s reasonable interpretation of the ambiguous regulation precludes a finding that it knowingly submitted false or fraudulent claims, even if CMS or a reviewing court would interpret the regulation differently. Relator simply failed to submit evidence refuting AAKC‘s strong showing that its interpretation was objectively reasonable. Relator‘s experts expressed their opinions that emergence as referred to in Step Three should end before an AAKC patient is transferred to the PACU. But Relator‘s contention that the Medicare regulations be interpreted in this fashion is “a claim of regulatory noncompliance,” not “an FCA claim of knowing fraud.” Ketroser, 729 F.3d at 831-32; see United States ex rel. Norbeck v. Basin Elec. Power Coop., 248 F.3d 781, 793 (8th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1115 (2002) (“The audit team‘s deliberate choice of this assumption cannot be fraud if they honestly believed it was a correct assumption.“).
3. The remaining question is whether the district court correctly concluded that AAKC‘s reasonable interpretation of the ambiguous regulation precludes a determination that AAKC was guilty of knowingly submitting false claims in violation of the FCA. The district court accurately noted our prior ruling that an FCA defendant‘s reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous regulation “belies the scienter necessary to establish a claim of fraud under the FCA.” Ketroser, 729 F.3d at 832. The United States as amicus protests that the district court “adopted the sweeping rule that a defendant‘s reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous regulation precludes FCA liability, regardless of the defendant‘s state of mind.”
The word “belies” is not so sweeping. It lies in harmony with the principle that summary judgment is not proper on the issue of FCA scienter if a Relator (or the United States) produces sufficient evidence of government guidance that “warn[ed] a regulated defendant away from an otherwise reasonable interpretation” of an ambiguous regulation. Purcell,
Relator further argues that summary judgment was improper because AAKC had a duty to ask CMS or its local contractors whether its interpretation of “emergence” was proper. We disagree. As the agency had not clarified an obvious ambiguity in its Step Three regulation for decades, AAKC‘s “failure to obtain a legal opinion or prior [CMS] approval cannot support a finding of recklessness.” K & R Ltd., 530 F.3d at 983-84.
II. The New Theory Issue.
Relator argues the district court erred in refusing to consider a theory first articulated in Relator‘s summary judgment papers—that AAKC violated Step Three because its anesthesiologists were not present during extubation, one of the “most demanding aspects of the anesthesia plan.” Relator argues that its Amended Complaint alleged that anesthesiologists were not present at extubation, and that extubation is part of emergence and therefore need not be separately pleaded. But an FCA claim that an anesthesiologist was not present at extubation, a “demanding aspect” not specifically referenced in Step Three, is different than an FCA claim that an anesthesiologist was never present during “emergence,” which is specifically referred to in Step Three. Whether due to careless pleading or an attempt to “lay in the weeds,” Relator‘s litigation tactic deprived the United States of an opportunity to consider this theory before declining to join in the action. The district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to consider the theory.3
III. The Documentation Issue.
Relator argues that AAKC violated
For each anesthesia procedure, AAKC anesthesiologists and CRNAs complete a two-page Anesthesia Services Form. The CRNA separates the original top page when the patient is transferred to the
The form includes four lines where the anesthesiologist reflects by initialing that he or she was: (1) “present at induction“; (2) “monitoring at frequent intervals“; (3) “immediately available“; and (4) “present for emergence.” In discovery, Relator sought production of Medical Direction reimbursement claims since July 1, 2002, and the carbonless copies of the Anesthesia Services Form for those claims, but not the original top pages from patient medical records. Out of approximately 13,000 Medical Direction reimbursement claims for general anesthesia services, 724 had an unsigned emergence line on the carbonless copy of the Anesthesia Services Form. Relator moved for partial summary judgment on the 724 claims and appeals the district court denial of that motion. Relator argues that this is conclusive evidence that AAKC failed to comply with Step Three and failed to comply with the record-keeping requirements of
As the district court recognized, the regulation required AAKC to document anesthesiologist presence at emergence “in the patient‘s medical record,” not in AAKC‘s billing records. When an anesthesiologist visited a patient in the PACU, after the CRNA had sent the carbonless copy of the form to the billing office, one would expect the anesthesiologist to initial the emergence line on the top copy of the form, which became part of the patient‘s medical record. Therefore, Relator was not entitled to partial summary judgment on the 724 claims because it made no effort to obtain the top copies of the Anesthesia Services Forms from MMC patient records. AAKC reviewed fifty of those patient files and found that anesthesiologists completed the emergence line in nineteen of them. The district court concluded that Relator at most produced evidence that AAKC “may have negligently submitted 31 of 13,000 Medical Direction claims, which is not an FCA violation.” We agree. “[T]he FCA does not encompass those instances of regulatory noncompliance that are irrelevant to the government‘s disbursement decisions.” Ketroser, 729 F.3d at 829 (quotation omitted).
The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
Nos. 15-1177/15-1428
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: April 12, 2016
Filed: August 15, 2016
Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied September 15, 2016