Jones-McNamara v. Holzer Health Sys., Inc. (Summary)

FALSE CLAIMS ACT

Jones-McNamara v. Holzer Health Sys., Inc., No. 2:13–cv–616 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 23, 2015)

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio granted a hospital’s motion for summary judgment against a lawsuit filed by its former Vice President of Corporate Compliance. The compliance officer sued the hospital for retaliatory discharge under the federal False Claims Act, plus five other state law claims.

In assessing her retaliatory discharge claim, the court explained that the compliance officer would have to show not only that she engaged in an activity protected under the law, but also that the hospital knew she had engaged in the activity and then “discharged or otherwise discriminated against her as a result of the protected activity.” The hospital argued that the compliance officer could not establish any of the required elements of retaliatory discharge, but the compliance officer insisted that she had evidence of retaliation.

To support her claim, the compliance officer introduced four different types of direct evidence. Most of this evidence consisted of e-mail chains from various administrators over the compliance officer’s investigation of a potential anti-kickback statute violation. Specifically, the compliance officer had been investigating whether an ambulance company improperly provided hot dogs to hospital employees.

The court sided with the hospital. First, it concluded that none of the compliance officer’s evidence directly supported her claim of retaliation. Next, it explained that even if it gave her the benefit of the doubt and decided there was at least a prima facie case of retaliation, there existed ample reasons why the hospital might have legitimately terminated her employment instead. For example, she had failed to disclose that she had a brother who also worked for the hospital, she had actively sought to conceal that she now lived in Ohio so that she could continue serving on a committee as Virginia’s representative, and she had repeatedly called the CEO “Brett” instead of his actual name, “Brent.” Moreover, she often sent out e-mails indicating that an anti-kickback violation existed, but then admit that she had issued this opinion before completing her investigation of the matter. When the CEO instructed her to complete her investigation before putting a conclusion in writing, she disregarded his advice and continued to send out e-mails announcing that she had found a violation.

The court stated that it had reached a simple conclusion. The court explained that the hospital claimed it had fired the compliance officer because she was a “difficult flake” and noted that the compliance officer had failed to provide evidence that would discredit this rationale. Consequently, she could not establish that the hospital had discharged her for engaging in a protected activity.

Furthermore, the court concluded that no reasonable juror could possibly find that the hospital’s reasons for firing her were mere pretext. It granted the hospital’s motion for summary judgment against the retaliation claim and denied the compliance officer’s motion for partial summary judgment. Since the retaliatory discharge claim was the only federal cause of action, the court declined to hear her state law claims and dismissed them without prejudice.