On April 18, 2017, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida adopted the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and granted BayCare Health System’s (BayCare’s) motion for summary judgment. The FCA suit was brought by a real estate appraiser unaffiliated with BayCare and, although the DOJ had declined to intervene, the relator proceeded with the FCA action.
The complaint alleged that BayCare violated the Anti-Kickback Statute and Stark law by providing physicians working in medical office buildings affiliated with BayCare:
-
Parking rights, which allowed the physicians, their staff, and their patients to use parking facilities at no charge;
-
Valet parking services, which were paid by BayCare and provided to the physicians, their staff, and patients; and
-
Tax savings, which allowed physicians to benefit from BayCare’s tax exemption.
The court ruled in favor of BayCare and granted summary judgment, finding there was no evidence of a direct or indirect compensation arrangement between BayCare and the referring physicians that was based on or intended to induce referrals.
Although BayCare was ultimately successful in defending against this non-intervened qui tam, this case underscores the considerable expense that can be associated with defending against such actions. The parties were tentatively scheduled for trial this month and had begun submitting trial documents, including proposed jury statements and verdict forms.
To view the magistrate’s report and recommendation that was adopted by the District Court, click here.
