News
NQGRG Attorneys Obtain Complete Dismissal with Prejudice in Years-Long, Seven-Count, Multi-Million Dollar Qui Tam Lawsuit
May 29, 2025
On March 29, 2025, Neuberger, Quinn, Gielen, Rubin & Gibber, P.A. attorneys, Thomas M. Wood, IV and Nicole M. Hardman (formerly Barnard), obtained a complete dismissal of a seven-count healthcare fraud complaint filed against several healthcare entities in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The firm represented two entities who performed medical laboratory testing that informed healthcare providers, including physicians, of chemical and biochemical changes in patients’ bodies. The relator-plaintiff in the case filed its original complaint in 2016. During the course of the litigation, the relator-plaintiff amended its complaint four times, each time attempting to avoid dismissal. The fourth amended complaint (“FAC”),which sought damages exceeding tens of millions of dollars, included the following claims based on alleged fraudulent schemes: (1) presentation of false claims to the federal government pursuant to the federal False Claims Act (“FCA”), 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729(a) (1) & (a) (1) (A); (2) making false statements material to false claims to the federal government pursuant to the FCA, 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(l)(B); (3) failure to return overpayments pursuant to the FCA, 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(l)(G); (4) violation of the New York False Claims Act (“NYFCA”) pursuant to N.Y. Fin. Law art. 13 §§ 187, et seq.; (5) violation of the New Jersey False Claims Act (“NJFCA”) pursuant to N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2A:32C-3; (6) illegal retaliation pursuant to the FCA, 31 U.S.C. § 3730(h); and (7) illegal retaliation pursuant to the New Jersey Conscientious Employee Protection Act, N.J.S.A. 34:19-1, et seq.
In its Motion to Dismiss the FAC, the firm sought dismissal based on jurisdictional grounds and for failure to state a claim. In dismissing with prejudice all claims against Neuberger, Quinn, Gielen, Rubin & Gibber, P.A.’s first client for lack of jurisdiction, the Court stated that Neuberger, Quinn, Gielen, Rubin & Gibber, P.A. “has it right: this court has neither personal jurisdiction over [Neuberger, Quinn, Gielen, Rubin & Gibber, P.A.’s first client], nor subject-matter jurisdiction over any of the claims filed against [Neuberger, Quinn, Gielen, Rubin & Gibber, P.A.’s first client].” In dismissing with prejudice all claims against Neuberger, Quinn, Gielen, Rubin & Gibber, P.A.’s second client, as well as the other defendants named in the case, the Court found that the relator-plaintiff lacked standing to bring the retaliation claims and, despite having five bites at the apple, failed to adequately allege any false claims pursuant to the FCA, NYFCA and NJFCA. The case was officially closed on March 31, 2025.