Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03141/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03141-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 

---

1

The Honorable Richard H. Kyle, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-3141

___________

United States of America, *

ex rel. Toni Lee, *

*

Appellant, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * District of Minnesota.

*

Fairview Health System, *

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: May 13, 2005

Filed: July 6, 2005

___________

Before WOLLMAN, COLLOTON, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

WOLLMAN, Circuit Judge.

Qui tam relator Toni Lee appeals from the district court’s1

 decision denying

leave to amend her complaint. We affirm.

I.

In January 2002, Lee brought a qui tam False Claims Act suit against Fairview

Health System. Lee, who had previously worked as a physical therapist at various

Appellate Case: 04-3141 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/06/2005 Entry ID: 1924240
-2-

Fairview facilities, alleged that Fairview had submitted a number of false Medicare

and Medicaid claims by incorrectly billing services provided by athletic trainers and

massage therapists as physical therapy services, improperly supervising physical

therapy assistants, and wrongly allowing athletic trainers to perform duties that could

only be performed by physical therapists and physical therapy assistants. Fairview

later moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief

could be granted. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).

Lee did not oppose the dismissal of most of her claims. She did, however,

contest the dismissal of her claim that Fairview had improperly allowed athletic

trainers to perform physical therapist and physical therapy assistant duties. She also

requested that, if the district court granted Fairview’s motion to dismiss, she be

allowed to amend her complaint. She reiterated this request at oral argument on

Fairview’s motion.

The district court granted Fairview’s motion to dismiss and thus disposed of

Lee’s remaining claim, holding that, under Minnesota law, “athletic trainers could

provide physical therapy services when working under the direct supervision of a

physical therapist.” D. Ct. Order of July 22, 2004, at 12. In addition, the district

court denied Lee’s motion for leave to amend as futile on the ground that “[n]o set of

facts [could] rehabilitate Lee’s fatally flawed interpretation of Minnesota law.” Id.

at 12 n.9. Although Lee does not appeal the dismissal of her claim, she does assert

error in the district court’s denial of her motion for leave to amend.

II.

“We review the district court’s decision to deny leave to amend a complaint for

abuse of discretion.” Moses.com Securities, Inc. v. Comprehensive Software Sys.,

Inc., 406 F.3d 1052, 1065 (8th Cir. 2005). Although leave to amend “shall be freely

given when justice so requires,” see Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a), plaintiffs do not have an

absolute or automatic right to amend. Meehan v. United Consumers Club

Appellate Case: 04-3141 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/06/2005 Entry ID: 1924240
-3-

Franchising Corp., 312 F.3d 909, 913 (8th Cir. 2002) (citation omitted). Futility is

a valid basis for denying leave to amend. Moses.com, 406 F.3d at 1065.

Lee argues that the district court abused its discretion by denying her motion

for leave to amend as futile because she could have amended the complaint to include

an allegation that Fairview’s athletic trainers were not properly supervised and,

accordingly, that Fairview’s Medicare and Medicaid claims were falsely made. Lee

first requested leave to amend in her opposition to Fairview’s motion to dismiss so

that she could “cure any deficiencies” the district court might have found in her

complaint. In neither her pleading nor at oral argument on Fairview’s motion,

however, did she detail the substance of her amendment or delineate which new

claims she would assert. Furthermore, she failed to submit a copy of her amended

pleading—which would have notified the district court of the content of her amended

claims—as required by the District of Minnesota’s Local Rule 15.1. Finally, Lee’s

counsel stated at oral argument on Fairview’s motion that supervision issues were

“irrelevant” to her claims. D. Ct. Order of July 22, 2004, at 12. 

Given Lee’s failure to communicate the substance of her proposed

amendments, we hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying

Lee’s request for leave to amend. See Dudek v. Prudential Securities, Inc., 295 F.3d

875, 880 (8th Cir. 2002) (finding no abuse of discretion when plaintiff failed to

submit proposed amended pleading and failed to describe substance of amended

claims). See also Meehan, 312 F.3d at 914 (“[T]he district court was not required to

engage in a guessing game.”); Wisdom v. First Midwest Bank, 167 F.3d 402, 409 (8th

Cir. 1999) (“[P]arties should not be allowed to amend their complaint without

showing how the complaint could be amended to save the meritless claim.”). When

confronted with Lee’s motion, the district court was justified in assuming—as it

apparently did—that Lee’s amendments would concern the claims already included

in her complaint. Lee does not dispute that amendments to those claims would indeed

be futile.

Appellate Case: 04-3141 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/06/2005 Entry ID: 1924240
-4-

The judgment is affirmed.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-3141 Page: 4 Date Filed: 07/06/2005 Entry ID: 1924240