Ingle v. Janick (Summary)

FALSE CLAIMS ACT – WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION

Ingle v. Janick, No. 2:14-cv-544-FtM-38DNF (M.D. Fla. Nov. 17, 2014)

The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida denied a medical facility’s motion to dismiss an employee’s False Claims Act (“FCA”) lawsuit, holding that the employee does not have to actually file an FCA action to qualify for the Act’s whistleblower protection. The employee worked as an office manager at the defendant medical facility for over 30 years. The medical facility allegedly began to bill Medicare for ultrasound services that were performed by non-credentialed personnel. The employee claimed that she objected to this practice and informed the medical facility that this type of billing was illegal. Additionally, the employee informed the medical facility that she would not work there until it ceased this fraudulent activity. The medical facility never informed her of its changed practices and the employee resigned. The employee claimed that she was constructively discharged due to her objections and sued under the FCA whistleblower provision. The medical facility argued that the employee is ineligible for this protection because she never filed a qui tam lawsuit on behalf of the government, nor did she follow the FCA’s qui tam procedures.

The court held that in order to qualify for whistleblower protection under the FCA, the employee merely needed to engage in protected conduct that notified the medical facility that there was a distinct possibility of legal action against it. The standard does not require an actual FCA claim to be filed. The court went on to find that, in this case, the employee’s objection that the medical facility’s actions were illegal was enough to put them on notice that legal action was a distinct possibility.