A False Claims Act lawsuit brought against Jackson-based Central Mississippi Medical Center was dismissed Jan. 5 by a federal judge in Mississippi, but the judge ruled the physician still may pursue charges of retaliatory discharge and harassment.
The allegations were brought under the whistleblower provisions of the act by W. Blake Vanderlan, MD, a former physician at the hospital.
In the lawsuit, filed in 2015, Dr. Vanderlan claimed the hospital wrongly transfered Black trauma patients without insurance to the University of Mississippi Medical Center in violation of the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act. As a result of the action, the hospital submitted false claims for reimbursement to Medicare and Medicaid, the lawsuit claimed.
The case remained inactive for nearly two years while the U.S. Justice Department considered intervention. When the government declined to intervene, Dr. Vanderlan pursued legal action as a private individual in the name of the government.
The U.S. Justice Department then sought to dismiss the case.
In his Jan. 5 opinion, Daniel P. Jordan III of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi granted the Justice Department's move to dismiss the case.
Since Dr. Vanderlan stands in the shoes of the government in the lawsuit, "the government retains an 'unfettered right' to dismiss the action at any time," the judge ruled.
The judge ruled that Dr. Vanderlan wasn't entitled to an in-person hearing before his case was dismissed because he had several opportunities to brief the court in written responses.
Five of the six counts brought against the hospital by Dr. Vanderlan have been dismissed. The remaining count for retaliatory discharge and harassment stands, but since the scope of the lawsuit has changed significantly, it is longer a False Claims Act lawsuit, according to the judge.
Dr. Vanderlan was advised by the judge to "evaluate his interest in pursuing count IV against [the hospital] following the court's rulings."
"Simply put, the case has changed, and relator [Dr. Vanderlan] should have an opportunity to assess the next step," the court opinion said.