UNITED STATES OF AMERICA EX REL. DAVID FELTEN, M.D., PH.D. v. WILLIAM BEAUMONT HOSPITAL - Articles

All Content

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA EX REL. DAVID FELTEN, M.D., PH.D. v. WILLIAM BEAUMONT HOSPITAL

Posted by: Karen Belcher on Mar 31, 2021

Court: 6th Circuit Court (Published Opinions)

Attorneys 1: ARGUED: Julie Bracker, BRACKER & MARCUS LLC, Marietta, Georgia, for Appellant.

Attorneys 2: ARGUED: Michael R. Turco, BROOKS WILKINS SHARKEY & TURCO, Birmingham, Michigan, for Appellee.

Attorneys 3: ON BRIEF: Julie Bracker, Jason Marcus, BRACKER & MARCUS LLC, Marietta, Georgia, for Appellant.

Attorneys 4: ON BRIEF: Michael R. Turco, Jason D. Killips, Steven M. Ribiat, BROOKS WILKINS SHARKEY & TURCO, Birmingham, Michigan, for Appellee.

Judge(s): McKEAGUE, GRIFFIN, and BUSH, Circuit Judges

Court Appealed: United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit

JOHN K. BUSH, Circuit Judge. David Felten appeals the district court’s partial dismissal of his first amended complaint alleging that William Beaumont Hospital (“Beaumont”) violated the anti-retaliation provision of the False Claims Act (“FCA”), 31 U.S.C. § 3730(h). Felten claims that Beaumont blacklisted him after he filed a qui tam complaint, in which he alleged that the hospital violated certain federal and state laws. Notably, the alleged blacklisting occurred after Felten’s termination from Beaumont, and Felten’s anti-retaliation claim challenges only Beaumont’s post-termination actions. The district court dismissed the claim because it held that the FCA’s anti-retaliation provision covers only retaliatory actions taken during the course of a plaintiff’s employment. The district court certified for interlocutory appeal the question whether the FCA’s anti-retaliation provision protects a relator from a defendant’s retaliation after the relator’s termination. That question is an issue of first impression in our circuit. Because we hold that the FCA’s anti-retaliation provision protects former employees alleging post- termination retaliation, we vacate the district court’s dismissal order and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Attachments: