X hits on this document

71 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

9 / 20

submitted to the Counterclaim Defendants [sic]:

  • a)

    RODGR000

  • b)

    GIDMA000

  • c)

    SIMKE002 . . . .

(Id. ¶ 19 (listing, by identification code, seventeen total reimbursement requests) (emphasis

added and footnote omitted)). Although this averment does not itemize which procedures were

not performed, it does identify both the reimbursement request at issue (i.e., the specific billing

code) and the alleged fraudulent nature of that request (i.e., that the requests sought

reimbursement for medical procedures that were not performed). See Seville, 742 F.2d at 791

(holding, in case involving fraud in the sale of equipment, that exhibits detailing “which pieces

of equipment were the subject of which alleged fraudulent transaction” satisfied Rule 9(b) even

though the complaint did “not describe the precise words used” in the purported

misrepresentation). In addition to paragraph nineteen, paragraph twenty-five lists four patients

who allegedly received unnecessary treatment.6 As with those patients listed in paragraph

nineteen, State Farm has averred with particularity the billing number and the purported

fraudulent misrepresentation contained therein for all four patients listed in paragraph twenty-

five.

In connection with these averments, State Farm also asserts that counterclaim-defendants

each produced or directed the production of the documents submitted to State Farm.

This allegation links each of the individual

6 Three of the four patients listed in paragraph twenty-five are also listed in paragraph nineteen, but patient “SOUMA001,” who allegedly received unnecessary left arm treatment, is not.

9

Document info
Document views71
Page views73
Page last viewedSat Dec 10 22:30:42 UTC 2016
Pages20
Paragraphs418
Words5403

Comments