Relator brought qui tam suit against Chicago Vein Institute and its founding physicians, claiming violations of the False Claims Act (“FCA”), including a violation of the FCA’s anti-retaliation provision. More specifically, Relator alleged: (1) defendants knowingly presented false or fraudulent claims for payment; (2) knowingly made, used or caused to be made or used, false records or statements material to a false or fraudulent claim; and (3) knowingly concealed or knowingly and improperly avoided obligations to pay the government. Additionally, Relator alleged Defendants offered and paid kickbacks to beneficiaries in the form of waived co-pays and deductibles. Lastly, Relator claimed that as a result of lodging complaints about the foregoing, she was terminated.
The Illinois district court dismissed Relator’s claims with prejudice for failing to meet the heightened pleading requirements under Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b). The FCA is an anti-fraud statute and claims brought pursuant to the FCA are subject to Rule 9(b).
Additionally, Relator’s bare bones response to Defendants’ motion to dismiss, essentially failed to address or respond to the arguments presented therein. The Illinois district court found this as another ground for dismissing Relator’s claims.
As for Relator’s retaliation claims, the complaint simply alleged her employment was wrongfully terminated. The Illinois district court held that “[w]hile the FCA … protect employees from retaliation for instituting a qui tam action or gathering evidence of fraud in order to do so, Relator must nonetheless show [Defendants] retaliated against her because of her actions taken in furtherance of a qui tam action, not merely that they retaliated against her because she discovered or complained of fraud.” United States ex rel Gutman v. Chicago Vein Institute, et al, 2021 WL 170674, *6 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 19, 2021). Relator failed to do this.
The Illinois district court dismissed with prejudice because it was dealing with a four year old case on its second amended complaint. Relator had “amended her complaint several three times already without success.” Id. at *7. To allow further amendment would be unduly prejudice Defendants, and based on the record, futile.