United States ex rel. Mikes v. Straus
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
274 F.3d 687 (2001)
- Written by Craig Conway, LLM
Facts
Dr. Marc Straus, Dr. Jeffrey Ambinder, and Dr. Eliot Friedman, (the Physicians) (defendants) hired Dr. Patricia Mikes (plaintiff). Mikes was board-certified in pulmonology, the specialty of detecting lung conditions. Mikes discussed with Straus her concerns about how the Physicians were conducting spirometry tests to detect asthma and emphysema conditions. A spirometry test required a patient to blow into a mouthpiece that provided physicians instant analysis of the volume and speed of the patient’s exhalation. Mikes claimed the spirometry tests were administered by insufficiently-trained personnel and the tests were not calibrated according to American Thoracic Society (ATS) guidelines. The ATS recommended daily calibration, which the Physicians were not doing. Three months later, the Physicians fired Mikes. In addition to retaliatory termination and unlawful withheld wages claims, Mikes filed a qui tam False Claims Act (FCA) action in federal court alleging that the Physicians had submitted false reimbursement requests to the federal government for the spirometry tests given to patients. Mikes claimed that the Physicians’ failure to calibrate the spirometers daily rendered the results so unreliable as to be “false” under the FCA. The United States government declined to intervene in the case. The district court granted the Physicians’ motion for summary judgment and Mikes appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Cardamone, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 814,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.