Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_01-cv-05990/USCOURTS-caed-1_01-cv-05990-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 31:3729 False Claims Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES and THE STATE )

OF CALIFORNIA ex rel. DR. )

BARNETT S. SALZMAN, et al., )

)

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. )

)

)

FRESNO COUNTY, et al., )

)

)

Defendant. )

)

)

No. CV-F-01-5990 REC/SMS

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS'

MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST

AMENDED COMPLAINT WITH

PREJUDICE

On January 9, 2006, the court heard defendants' motion to

dismiss the First Amended Complaint filed by plaintiff Dr.

Barnett S. Salzman. Dr. Salzman, who is proceeding in pro per, 

did not file a written response to defendants' motion nor did he

appear at oral argument.

Upon due consideration of the record and defendants'

arguments, the court hereby grants defendants' motion for the

reasons set forth herein.

This is a qui tam action brought by Dr. Barnett S. Salzman

Case 1:01-cv-05990-REC -SMS Document 95 Filed 01/19/06 Page 1 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

and Dr. Jerome R. Lance on behalf of the United States and the

State of California against the County of Fresno and the Fresno

County Human Health System and Does 1-20. The Complaint was

filed on August 2, 2001 under seal. The Complaint alleged that

Dr. Salzman is a California licensed physician specializing in

psychiatry employed by the County of Fresno. The Complaint

alleged two causes of action. The First Cause of Action for

violation of the federal and state false claims act has been

settled and was dismissed by court order filed under seal. The

Second Cause of Action in the Complaint was brought solely by Dr.

Salzman. The Second Cause of Action purported to allege claims

under the Federal False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3730(h) and the

California False Claims Act, Cal. Gov. Code § 12653. On October

3, 2005, the court heard defendants’ motion to dismiss the Second

Cause of Action. By Order filed on October 13, 2005, the court

dismissed with prejudice that aspect of the Second Cause of

Action alleging a claim for relief under California Government

Code § 12653 for failure to comply with the California Government

Tort Claims Act. The court dismissed with leave to amend that

aspect of the Second Cause of Action based on a violation of 31

U.S.C. § 3730(h). In so dismissing, the court ruled in pertinent

part:

As noted, the Second Cause of Action also

pleads a violation of 31 U.S.C. § 3730(h). 

Section 3730(h) provides in pertinent part:

Any employee who is discharged,

demoted, suspended, threatened,

harassed, or in any other manner

Case 1:01-cv-05990-REC -SMS Document 95 Filed 01/19/06 Page 2 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

3

discriminated against in the terms

and conditions of employment by his

or her employer because of lawful

acts done by the employee on behalf

of the employee or others in

furtherance of an action under this

section, including investigation

for, initiation of, testimony for,

or assistance in any action filed

or to be filed under this section,

shall be entitled to all relief

necessary to make the employee

whole. ....

In U.S. ex rel. Hopper v. Anton, 91 F.3d 1261

(9 Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1115 th

(1997), the Ninth Circuit, in an opinion

reviewing summary judgment, held that there

are three elements that a plaintiff must

prove in any Section 3730(h) cause of action:

“1) the employee must have been engaging in

conducted protected under the Act; 2) the

employer must have known that the employee

was engaging in such conduct; and 3) the

employer must have discriminated against the

employee because of [his] protected conduct.” 

91 F.3d at 1269. 

Defendants argue that the Complaint does not

allege facts from which it may be inferred

that Dr. Salzman engaged in conduct protected

under the False Claims Act. In so arguing,

defendants note that the Complaint merely

alleges:

20. Plaintiff Dr. Salzman

complained to the management of the

Fresno County Human Health System

about the misuse of UPIN codes and

the upcoding for services which

were either at much lower level

than indicated by the use of the

billing code or was non-existant

altogether. In response Fresno’s

management told not to discuss the

fraudulent billings [sic].

Defendants argue that Dr. Salzman does not

allege that he made the complaints about the

misuse of the codes in furtherance of an

action under the False Claims Act. In so

Case 1:01-cv-05990-REC -SMS Document 95 Filed 01/19/06 Page 3 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

4

arguing, defendants refer the court to the

following discussion in Hopper:

In this case, Hopper was not

engaged in activity protected under

the Act. Judgment should have been

granted against her as a matter of

law. Section 3730(h) only protects

employees who have acted ‘in

furtherance of an action’ under the

FCA. Specific awareness of the FCA

is not required. However, the

plaintiff must be investigating

matters which are calculated, or

reasonably could lead, to a viable

FCA action ....

The entire record fails to

demonstrate Hopper was engaged in

‘furtherance of an action’ under

the FCA. Rather, the record quite

clearly shows Hopper was merely

attempting to get the School

District to comply with Federal and

State regulations. Her numerous

written complaints, seventy letters

and over fifty telephone calls were

all directed to this end. She was

not trying to recover money for the

government; she was attempting to

get classroom teachers into IEP

evaluation sessions. She was not

investigating fraud. She was not

whistleblowing as envisioned in the

paradigm qui tam FCA action ...

Quite plainly, the thrust of her

complaints was that the School

District was failing to meets its

IDEA obligations to its students. 

Correcting regulatory problems may

be a laudable goal, but not one

actionable under the FCA in the

absence of actual fraudulent

conduct. Her FCA allegations were

not sufficient to pass summary

judgment muster. Her investigatory

activity did not have any nexus to

the FCA. Thus, the district court

should have granted the School

District’s motion for judgment as a

matter of law.

Case 1:01-cv-05990-REC -SMS Document 95 Filed 01/19/06 Page 4 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

5

91 F.3d at 1269. Defendants further argue

that the Second Cause of Action does not

allege facts from which it may be inferred

that Dr. Salzman’s employer was aware that

Dr. Salzman was investigating fraud. Again,

defendants refer the court to Hopper:

Further, unless the employer is

aware that the employee is

investigating fraud, the employer

could not possess the retaliatory

intent necessary to establish a

violation of § 3730(h) ... The

legislative history clearly

provides that a ‘whistleblower must

show the employer had knowledge the

employee was engaged in “protected

activity.”’ ...

Defendant’s contend that the Complaint “is

devoid of any factual allegations tending to

show that Defendant had knowledge of the

fact, or was placed on notice that, [Dr.

Salzman] was investigating the County for

‘defrauding’ the Federal government.”

Although Hopper involved summary judgment,

not a motion to dismiss for failure to state

a claim, the court concludes that the

allegations of the Complaint are deficient

for the reasons argued by defendants. 

However, the court cannot conclude that Dr.

Salzman cannot amend the Second Cause of

Action to state a claim with regard to the

elements set forth in Hopper. 

Consequently, the Second Cause of Action is

dismissed with leave to amend to the extent

that it purports to state a claim for relief

pursuant to 31 U.S.C. § 3730(h).

Dr. Salzman timely filed a “First Amended Complaint by

Plaintiff; Second Cause of Action”. The First Amended Complaint

alleges:

Comes now Plaintiff Dr. Salzman to file a

first amended complaint to reflect the terms

and conditions of the stipulated dismissal of

the First Cause of Action in the Federal

Case 1:01-cv-05990-REC -SMS Document 95 Filed 01/19/06 Page 5 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

6

False Claims Lawsuit known as Case Number

101-CV-5990-REC-SMS [sic]. 

Plaintiff has alleged facts establishing the

elements of a Federal False Claims Act

Violation and filed under Seal in this

Federal Court ... in 2001 naming Dr. Barnett

S. Salzman as the U.S. co-plaintiff, who

provided the original evidence that proved

beyond a doubt that the Violation of The

Federal False Claims Act did occur. 

Plaintiff further alleges retaliation by the

Defendants Which included suspension without

pay, slander, libel Forced psychiatric

evaluation, demotion, harassment Threats of

termination, subjecting plaintiff to an

excessively hostile work environment and

dangerous Workplace environment, denied

promotion, letters of Reference,

falsification of personnel records to defame

Plaintiff; forcing plaintiff to hire several

different Attorneys exhausting his funds;

subjecting plaintiff And his family to

continuous emotional distress - directly

Resulting in dependent wife suffering both

physical And mental breakdown and loss of

consortium; directly resulting in plaintiff

suffering from Post-traumatic stress disorder

a worsening of high blood pressure,

cerebrovascular stroke, multiple stressrelated physical illnesses, including

bilateral acute kidney failure, multiple

dermatoses worsening of osteoarthritis,

community acquired pneumonitis, teeth

grinding dental problems including biting

through several dental plates - and other

illnesses; forcing reduction of work hours

from 40hr/wk to 32hrs/wk with reduction in

pay and benefits. Marked withdrawal from

social appearances, fear and anxiety -

leading to further ridicule and harassment by

Management - and suffering verbal insults and

discrimination and further medical expense.

To this date, there has been no apology or

Expunging of libelous statements.

Due to this cruel and sadistic treatment, the

plaintiff Has refused to abandon this second

cause of action And prays for declaratory

judgment against the Defendants and will seek

all legal remedies Including compensatory and

punitive damages.

I pray for relief from publically revealing

Case 1:01-cv-05990-REC -SMS Document 95 Filed 01/19/06 Page 6 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

The First Amended Complaint supersedes the Complaint. 1

Therefore, filing of the First Amended Complaint, the Complaint no

longer performs any function and is treated as non-existant. See

Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9 Cir. 1992). th

7

the specific Names of those complicit in this

misconduct and to refrain from reliving the

injuries received while performing my duty as

a physician and u.s. citizen.

Yet, it is my belief that there are other

witnesses and whistleblowers who see in my

injuries and debasement reason not to come

forward and report unlawful acts.

I pray that justice shall prevail.

I refer to documents and exhibits filed under

oath in this case.

As defendants argue, the allegations of the First Amended

Complaint do not suffice to allege the elements of a claim under

Section 3730(h). As defendants contend, dismissal for failure 1

to state a claim is required because the First Amended Complaint

fails to allege that Dr. Salzman was engaged in any “protected

activity” within the meaning of the statute. The First Amended

Complaint fails to allege any fact or facts from which a nexus

between Dr. Salzman in furtherance of an action under the FCA may

be inferred. Furthermore, the First Amended Complaint does not

allege facts from which it may be inferred that Dr. Salzman’s

employer was aware that Dr. Salzman was investigating fraud,

i.e., the protected activity. The First Amended Complaint is

devoid of any factual allegations from which it may be inferred

that Dr. Salzman’s employer had knowledge of the fact or was

placed on notice that Dr. Salzman was investigating defendants

for defrauding the United States. Finally, defendants argue that

the First Amended Complaint fails to allege that defendants

Case 1:01-cv-05990-REC -SMS Document 95 Filed 01/19/06 Page 7 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

8

discriminated against Dr. Salzman for engaging in protected

activity. 

Because Dr. Salzman was informed by court order of the

requirements to state a claim under Section 3730(h) and did not

respond to defendants’ motion to dismiss, the court concludes

that Dr. Salzman is unable to further amend to state a claim. 

Therefore, the court dismisses the First Amended Complaint as

brought by Dr. Salzman with prejudice and without further leave

to amend.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 17, 2006 /s/ Robert E. Coyle 

668554 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:01-cv-05990-REC -SMS Document 95 Filed 01/19/06 Page 8 of 8