United States v. Gen. Hosp. Corp.

Decision Date17 June 2019
Docket NumberCivil Action No. 1:15-cv-11890-ADB
Parties UNITED STATES of America and Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Plaintiffs, ex rel. Lisa Wollman, M.D., Relator, v. The GENERAL HOSPITAL CORPORATION, et al., Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts

Abraham R. George, US Attorney's Office, Amy Crafts, Office of the Attorney General, Laura R. Studen, Neerja Sharma, Burns & Levinson LLP, Boston, MA, Elizabeth H. Shofner, Pro Hac Vice, Reuben A. Guttman, Pro Hac Vice, Traci L. Buschner, Pro Hac Vice, Guttman, Buschner & Brooks, PLLC, Washington, DC, Justin S. Brooks, Pro Hac Vice, Guttman, Buschner & Brooks, PLLC, Philadelphia, PA, for Plaintiffs

Martin F. Murphy, Julia G. Amrhein, Kristopher N. Austin, Madeleine K. Rodriguez, Foley Hoag LLP, Boston, MA, for Defendants.



Relator Lisa Wollman, M.D. ("Wollman"), a former anesthesiologist at Defendant Massachusetts General Hospital ("MGH"), brings this qui tam action1 under the False Claims Act ("FCA"), 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729 et seq. , and the Massachusetts False Claims Act ("MFCA"), Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 12, § 5B, against MGH, Massachusetts General Physicians Organization ("MGPO"), and Partners Healthcare System ("Partners") (collectively "Defendants").2

Now pending before the Court is Defendants' motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim. [ECF No. 91]. For the reasons set forth below, the motion to dismiss [ECF No. 91] is DENIED.


The following facts are taken from the Second Amended Complaint. [ECF No. 89 ("SAC")]. The Court, as it must, accepts the well-pleaded allegations as true and draws all reasonable inferences in favor of Wollman. See Watterson v. Page, 987 F.2d 1, 3 (1st Cir. 1993) (citing Monahan v. Dorchester Counseling Ctr., Inc., 961 F.2d 987, 988 (1st Cir. 1992) ). This procedural and factual summary largely restates the summary provided in the Court's memorandum and order on Defendants prior motion to dismiss. See generally United States ex rel. Wollman v. Gen. Hosp. Corp., No. 15-CV-11890-ADB, 2018 WL 1586027 (D. Mass. Mar. 30, 2018).

Between 2010 and 2015, Wollman was a treating anesthesiologist at MGH, a teaching hospital that provides medical services to, among others, Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries. SAC ¶¶ 3, 10, 15, 30. MGH receives funds under Medicare Part A and other federal and state government programs to train residents (medical school graduates who are training in a medical specialty) and fellows (who have completed a residency program). Id. ¶¶ 25–28. Teaching hospitals like MGH are therefore not typically reimbursed under Medicare Part B for services that residents and fellows provide. Id. ¶¶ 31, 34. They may, however, seek payment under Medicare Part B and Medicaid for services provided by the teaching physicians charged with training the residents and fellows and who supervise services that residents and fellows provide. Id. ¶¶ 29, 35–36.

Wollman alleges that Defendants fraudulently billed Medicare and Medicaid for overlapping and concurrent surgeries in which a teaching physician performed two or three surgical procedures that required patients to be under anesthesia at the same time. Specifically, Wollman asserts that, in violation of applicable regulations promulgated by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services ("CMS"), teaching surgeons in MGH's Orthopaedic Surgery Department routinely left patients who were undergoing surgery alone with residents and fellows in order to conduct concurrently scheduled surgeries, and that they did so without identifying another qualified teaching physician who would be immediately available in the event of an emergency and without keeping proper records. Id. ¶ 1. Wollman also asserts that this practice resulted in patients being under anesthesia for extended, medically unnecessary periods. Id. Additionally, Wollman claims that Defendants concealed the fact of concurrently scheduled surgeries from patients and failed to obtain patients' "informed consent" for the inadequately supervised role that residents and fellows played. Id.

A. Procedural History

Under the FCA and the MFCA, the Attorney General or a private party may initiate a lawsuit alleging fraud on the government. 31 U.S.C. § 3730(a)(b) ; Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 12, § 5C(1)(4). "A private enforcement action under the FCA is called a qui tam action, with the private party referred to as the ‘relator.’ " United States ex rel. Eisenstein v. City of New York, 556 U.S. 928, 932, 129 S.Ct. 2230, 173 L.Ed.2d 1255 (2009) (quoting Vt. Agency of Nat. Res. v. United States ex rel. Stevens, 529 U.S. 765, 769, 120 S.Ct. 1858, 146 L.Ed.2d 836 (2000) ). "Qui tam complaints are initially filed under seal, and relators must allow the government sixty days to intervene and assume primary responsibility for prosecuting the action."

United States ex rel. Duxbury v. Ortho Biotech Prods., L.P., 719 F.3d 31, 33 (1st Cir. 2013) (citing 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)(2)(3), (c) ). If the government declines to intervene, the relator "may pursue the action on its behalf." United States ex rel. Ondis v. City of Woonsocket, 587 F.3d 49, 53 (1st Cir. 2009) (citing 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)(4) ). Regardless of the government's intervention, "[a] private relator is entitled to a portion of any proceeds from the suit." United States ex rel. Duxbury v. Ortho Biotech Prods., L.P., 579 F.3d 13, 16 (1st Cir. 2009) (quoting United States ex rel. Rost v. Pfizer, Inc., 507 F.3d 720, 727 (1st Cir. 2007), overruled in part as recognized by United States ex rel. Wilson v. Bristol-Myers Squibb, Inc., 750 F.3d 111, 113–14 (1st Cir. 2014) ).

On May 19, 2015, Wollman filed the initial complaint in this action under seal. [ECF No. 1]. After several requests from the government for extensions of time to continue its investigation, on February 17, 2017, both the United States and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts declined to intervene in this matter. [ECF Nos. 19, 20]. The initial complaint was ordered unsealed on April 12, 2017. [ECF Nos. 21, 23].

On June 7, 2017, Wollman filed her First Amended Complaint. [ECF No. 31]. Wollman's First Amended Complaint provided the surgery type, start time, and surgery duration for forty-six surgeries that occurred on sixteen different dates between July 2011 and March 2013. [ECF No. 31 ¶ 74]. Nearly all of the forty-six surgeries started at nearly the same time or substantially overlapped with one or two of the other listed surgeries. See id. Wollman also alleged that at least one of the patients who underwent each pair or trio of the concurrent or overlapping surgeries was eligible for Medicare. See id. ¶ 75. Although it asserted that claims for eligible patients had been submitted to Medicare and/or Medicaid, the First Amended Complaint lacked details establishing that the asserted claims had actually been submitted and paid. On March 30, 2018, following consideration of Defendants' motion to dismiss and Wollman's opposition, the Court dismissed the First Amended Complaint because although it "describe[d] an allegedly illegal ‘scheme,’ [it] only refer[ed] to specific false claims in the most conclusory terms." United States ex rel. Wollman, 2018 WL 1586027, at *6. In essence, Wollman's allegations had not identified the false claims for payment that had been submitted to the government, including the "who, what, when, where, and how" required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b). [ECF No. 65 at 13–16, 20–21]; see also United States ex rel. Karvelas v. Melrose-Wakefield Hosp., 360 F.3d 220, 232 (1st Cir. 2004) ("pleadings invariably are inadequate unless they are linked to allegations, stated with particularity, of the actual false claims submitted to the government that constitute the essential element of an FCA qui tam action"), abrogated on other grounds by Allison Engine Co., Inc. v. United States ex rel. Sanders, 553 U.S. 662, 128 S.Ct. 2123, 170 L.Ed.2d 1030 (2008).

On August 13, 2018, Wollman filed her Second Amended Complaint. [ECF No. 89]. The Second Amended Complaint is largely the same as the First Amended Complaint, except that Wollman has added specifics about several of the allegedly fraudulent claims that were submitted to the government for payment. See SAC ¶¶ 71, 73–78, 83. For eleven of the forty-six patients whose overlapping or concurrent surgeries are listed as examples to show that applicable regulations and rules were violated, Wollman now provides specifics for the claims that were submitted to Medicare or Medicaid, including services billed for, physician name, the billing provider, the amount billed, and the amount paid by the patient and government payor. Id. ¶ 83 nn.36–46, Exs. A, B. The specifics of these claims have been redacted and/or filed under seal to protect patient and provider privacy. Id.

Counts I and V allege violations of the FCA and MFCA, 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1) ; Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 12, § 5B(a)(1), for knowingly causing false claims to be submitted to the government in violation of Medicare and Medicaid rules regarding overlapping surgeries, record-keeping, informed consent, and unreasonable and unnecessary anesthesia. SAC ¶¶ 150–58, 168–71. Counts II and VI allege violations of the FCA and MFCA, 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1)(B) ; Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 12, § 5B(a)(2), for knowing use of false records or statements that caused false claims to be paid by the government. SAC ¶¶ 155–58, 173–77. Counts III and VII allege violations of the FCA and MFCA, 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1)(C) ; Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 12, § 5B(a)(3), for conspiracy to defraud the government. SAC ¶¶ 159–63, 178–82. Lastly, Counts IV and VIII allege violations of the FCA and MFCA, 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1)(G) ; Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 12, § 5B(a)(9), for knowingly making false statements that were material to an obligation to pay money to the government. SAC ¶¶ 164–67, 183–86. Defendants move to dismiss all counts for failure...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Mason v. Cent. Mass Transit Management/Worcester Reg'l Transit Auth.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts
    • August 2, 2019
    ...own name." Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 12, § 11I. This section of the statute refers to Section 11H of the same statute, describing the manner 394 F.Supp.3d 174 of interference as, "threats, intimidation or coercion, or attempt to interfere by threats, intimidation or coercion." Id. § 11H. Plaintif......
  • United States ex rel. Mackillop v. Grand Canyon Educ.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts
    • September 6, 2022
    ...claims despite actual knowledge that the supposedly material requirements had been violated.” United States v. Gen. Hosp. Corp., 394 F.Supp.3d 174, 189 (D. Mass. 2019) (Burroughs, J.); see also Rose, 909 F.3d at 1020-23 (applying a similar holistic test drawing from Escobar I's guidance). T......
  • United States ex rel. Wollman v. Mass. Gen. Hosp., Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts
    • July 29, 2020
    ..."Motion for Reconsideration" (Docket No. 164) is ALLOWED .1 The MTD Order is published as United States v. Gen. Hosp. Corp., 394 F. Supp. 3d 174 (D. Mass. 2019).2 The relevant pleadings addressing the Plaintiff's motion to compel presently before this court include "Plaintiff-Relator's Corr......
  • United States ex rel. Crocano v. Trividia Health Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida
    • July 18, 2022
    ... ... Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting ... Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 570 ... (2007)). A claim is plausible on its face when a ... reasonable and necessary for a class of patients); United ... States v. Gen. Hosp. Corp. , 394 F.Supp.3d 174, 182 (D ... Mass. 2019) (holding that unnecessarily ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT