[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 16-17059

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:13-cv-23671-MGC

THOMAS BINGHAM, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

HCA, INC.

Defendant-Appellee

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(July 31, 2019)

Before MARCUS, BLACK, and WALKER,

∗ Circuit Judges.

WALKER, Circuit Judge: 

 

∗ John M. Walker, Jr., United States Circuit Judge for the Second Circuit, sitting by 

designation. 

Case: 16-17059 Date Filed: 07/31/2019 Page: 1 of 20 
2

This is a qui tam action brought under the False Claims Act by PlaintiffAppellant Thomas Bingham (“Relator”) against Defendant-Appellee HCA, Inc. 

(“HCA”). HCA is a healthcare services provider that owns and operates hospitals 

and surgery centers throughout the United States. Relator’s claims relate to the 

Centerpoint Medical Center in Independence, Missouri (the “Centerpoint Claims”) 

and the Aventura Hospital in Aventura, Florida (the “Aventura Claims”). On 

November 4, 2016, the district court (Cooke, J.) entered judgment in favor of HCA 

following its grant of summary judgment on the Centerpoint Claims and dismissal 

of the Aventura Claims on the pleadings. Relator appeals, arguing that the district 

court erred in granting both motions. For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM 

the judgment of the district court.

I. BACKGROUND

We begin with a brief overview of the False Claims Act, then describe the 

factual premise of Relator’s claims, and conclude with the procedural history of the 

case.

A. Relator’s Claims Under the False Claims Act 

“The False Claims Act is the primary law on which the federal government 

relies to recover losses caused by fraud.” McNutt ex rel. United States v. 

Haleyville Med. Supplies, Inc., 423 F.3d 1256, 1259 (11th Cir. 2005). The False 

Claims Act “permits private persons to file a form of civil action (known as qui 

Case: 16-17059 Date Filed: 07/31/2019 Page: 2 of 20 
3

tam) against, and recover damages on behalf of the United States from, any person 

who . . . ‘knowingly presents, or causes to be presented . . . a false or fraudulent 

claim for payment or approval . . . [or] knowingly makes, uses, or causes to be 

made or used, a false record or statement to get a false or fraudulent claim paid or 

approved by the Government.’” United States ex rel. Clausen v. Lab. Corp. of Am. 

Inc., 290 F.3d 1301, 1307 (11th Cir. 2002) (quoting 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1)–(2)). 

For his services, the relator is entitled to a substantial percentage of the recovery. 

31 U.S.C. § 3730(d).

Relator’s claims under the False Claims Act are for certain allegedly 

improper Medicare payments received by HCA. The claims are predicated on his 

assertion that HCA violated the Anti-Kickback Statute, 42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7b(b)

(“AKS”), and 42 U.S.C. § 1395nn(a) (the “Stark Statute”), by providing sweetheart 

deals to certain physicians who leased space in medical office buildings developed

by HCA in exchange for patient referrals from those physicians. Noncompliance 

with either statute is a bar to the receipt of Medicare payments, and therefore a 

violation of either statute can form the basis of liability under the False Claims Act

for past Medicare payments attributable to the violations. United States ex rel. 

Bingham v. HCA, Inc., No. 13-23671-CIV, 2016 WL 344887, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 

28, 2016).

Case: 16-17059 Date Filed: 07/31/2019 Page: 3 of 20 
4

B. The Centerpoint Claims

In 2003, HCA began to develop the Centerpoint Medical Center, a new 

hospital and medical office building (“MOB”) in Independence, Missouri. HCA 

hired Tegra Independence Medical Surgical, L.C. (“Tegra”), a third-party 

developer, to develop the MOB. As part of the development project, Tegra leased 

out space in the MOB to physicians. In 2012, Tegra sold the MOB for $50 million. 

Relator alleges that as part of the development of the MOB, HCA paid Tegra $4 

million in allegedly improper subsidies, primarily through an initial lease and an 

arrangement involving parking facilities at the MOB, which Tegra passed on to 

physician tenants through payments under Cash Flow Participation Agreements 

(“CFPAs”) between Tegra and physician tenants, low initial lease rates, restricted 

use waivers, and free office improvements. In exchange, Relator alleges, HCA 

received $260 million in Medicare and Medicaid payments from patients referred 

to HCA’s hospital by the physician tenants. 

Tegra offered CFPAs to any physician tenant who would sign a ten-year 

lease. The CFPA entitled the physician tenant to a pro-rata share of the property’s 

operating cash flow, including proceeds from any sale of the building. A project 

manager for Tegra stated in an affidavit that a “ten-year lease term was longer than 

the average lease term in the market at the time the CFPAs were negotiated and 

executed.” App’x 117-6 ¶ 21. The formula used to calculate a physician tenant’s 

Case: 16-17059 Date Filed: 07/31/2019 Page: 4 of 20 
5

payout under his or her CFPA depended on the amount of space that person leased. 

The leases entered into in 2006 and 2007 between Tegra and physician tenants who 

also signed on to CFPAs provided for a rental rate of $18.90 per square foot. 

On January 1, 2005, an appraiser engaged by HCA, Holladay Properties 

(“Holladay”), performed a market rent study on the rental space in the MOB and 

concluded that the fair market rent range was $14.50 to $19.00 per square foot. This 

study assumed free parking and did not take into account the CFPAs. In June 2005, 

that appraisal was updated to reflect, among other things, Tegra’s use of the CFPAs, 

and confirmed that the fair market rent range was still $14.50 to $19.00 per square 

foot. In 2007, Holladay certified that the business and lease terms were consistent 

with fair market value, signed the study, and provided it to HCA. 

On June 18, 2007, Holladay prepared a Standard Business and Lease Terms 

Memorandum. The memorandum noted that the CFPAs were being offered to 

physician tenants and concluded that the fair market rent range was $21.50 to 

$23.50 per square foot. The memorandum stated that the increase in rental rates 

was due to higher construction costs. 

Relator also alleges that HCA gave physician tenants restricted use waivers

and free office improvements. In support, he points to one example in which a 

doctor wanted to install a digital rad machine, which, because it was non-standard, 

required modifications to his suite as well as the approval of HCA, as the operator 

Case: 16-17059 Date Filed: 07/31/2019 Page: 5 of 20 
6

of the hospital. Relator alleges that HCA, rather than physician tenants, made free 

improvements to office spaces, based on the fact that the general contractor who 

worked with HCA applied for the building permits, and HCA was shown as the 

“owner” on the building permits, many of which were filed prior to the start of the 

physician tenant’s lease. 

C. The Aventura Claims

The Aventura Hospital is a hospital complex in Aventura, Florida that is

owned and operated by HCA. In 2002, HCA recruited the Greenfield Group 

(“Greenfield”) to develop a MOB adjacent to the Aventura Hospital. The alleged 

Aventura arrangement was broadly similar to the alleged Centerpoint arrangement. 

Relator alleges that HCA financed and subsidized Greenfield through a ground 

lease and development agreement. In 2007, Greenfield sold the MOB, and Relator 

alleges that profits were paid to physician tenants who partnered with Greenfield. 

Relator also alleges that HCA provided direct remuneration to referring physician 

tenants, including free parking rights and benefits, below market rents, subsidized 

common area maintenance, and free use permissions. Procedural History

On August 15, 2014, Relator filed his First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), 

and on February 23, 2015, the United States declined to intervene in the suit, as 

permitted by the False Claims Act. See 31 U.S.C. § 3730. On July 22, 2015, the 

parties jointly moved to stay discovery pending resolution of HCA’s anticipated 

Case: 16-17059 Date Filed: 07/31/2019 Page: 6 of 20 
7

motion to dismiss. The district court denied that motion, and discovery began. 

HCA then moved to dismiss Relator’s complaint. On January 28, 2016, the district 

court dismissed the Aventura Claims without prejudice for failure to comply with 

Rule 9(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure but allowed the Centerpoint 

Claims to continue. On March 8, 2016, Relator filed his Second Amended 

Complaint (“SAC”), which included additional facts pertaining to the Aventura 

Claims. Thereafter, HCA moved for summary judgment on the Centerpoint 

Claims. On April 6, 2016, the district court, following a hearing, granted that 

motion. Finally, on October 14, 2016, the district court granted HCA’s motion to 

strike impermissible facts in Realtor’s SAC and dismissed the repleaded Aventura 

Claims. On November 4, 2016, the district court entered a final judgment that

dismissed the Aventura Claims on the pleadings and granted summary judgment to 

HCA on the Centerpoint Claims. This appeal followed.

II. DISCUSSION

On appeal, Relator argues that the district court erred in entering final 

judgment in favor of HCA on both the Centerpoint and Aventura Claims. We find 

no error and affirm the district court’s judgment. 

Case: 16-17059 Date Filed: 07/31/2019 Page: 7 of 20 
8

A. Centerpoint Claims

i. Standard of Review

“We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, 

applying the same legal standards that bound that court and viewing all facts and 

reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.” United 

States ex rel. Walker v. R&F Props. of Lake Cty., Inc., 433 F.3d 1349, 1355 (11th 

Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks omitted). “Summary judgment is appropriate 

‘if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact’ such 

that ‘the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.’” United States ex rel. 

Phalp v. Lincare Holdings, Inc., 857 F.3d 1148, 1153 (11th Cir. 2017) (quoting 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a)). “Genuine disputes are those in which the evidence is such 

that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the non-movant. For factual issues 

to be considered genuine, they must have a real basis in the record.” Ellis v. 

England, 432 F.3d 1321, 1325–26 (11th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks

omitted). The appeals court “will affirm a grant of summary judgment if it is 

correct for any reason.” United States v. $121,100.00 in U.S. Currency, 999 F.2d 

1503, 1507 (11th Cir. 1993).

ii. Anti-Kickback Statute Claims

Relator’s first claim under the False Claims Act is predicated on his 

allegation that HCA violated the AKS. See 42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7b(b). The AKS 

Case: 16-17059 Date Filed: 07/31/2019 Page: 8 of 20 
9

“broadly forbids kickbacks, bribes, and rebates in the administration of 

government healthcare programs.” Carrel v. AIDS Healthcare Found., Inc., 898 

F.3d 1267, 1272 (11th Cir. 2018). In relevant part, it provides that “[w]hoever

knowingly and willfully offers or pays any remuneration (including any kickback, 

bribe, or rebate) directly or indirectly, overtly or covertly, in cash or in kind to any 

person to induce such person . . . to refer an individual to a person for the 

furnishing or arranging for the furnishing of any item or service for which payment 

may be made in whole or in part under a Federal health care program . . . shall be 

guilty of a felony.” 42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7b(b)(2)(A).

An AKS violation thus requires that there be “remuneration” offered or paid

in the transaction at issue. Because “remuneration” is not specifically defined in 

the statute, we must turn to “the common usage of words for their meaning.” In re 

Walter Energy, Inc., 911 F.3d 1121, 1143 (11th Cir. 2018) (internal quotation 

marks omitted). “To determine the ordinary meaning of a term, we often look to 

dictionary definitions for guidance.” Id. Black’s Law Dictionary defines 

“remuneration” in pertinent part as “[p]ayment; compensation.” Remuneration, 

Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019). Compensation, in turn, cannot be given 

unless some sort of benefit is conferred. See, e.g., Compensation, Black’s Law 

Dictionary (11th ed. 2019) (“Remuneration and other benefits received in return 

for services rendered”). In a business transaction like those at issue in this case, 

Case: 16-17059 Date Filed: 07/31/2019 Page: 9 of 20 
10

the value of a benefit can only be quantified by reference to its fair market value. 

See also Klaczak v. Consol. Med. Transp., 458 F. Supp. 2d 622, 679 (N.D. Ill. 

2006) (“Relators cannot prove that the Hospital Defendants received 

remuneration—something of value—without comparing the contracted rates with 

fair market value.”).

This understanding of “remuneration” is supported by the definition of 

“remuneration” in 42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7a(i)(6), which relates to civil monetary 

penalties in connection with medical fraud. Although that definition is limited to 

that particular section of Title 42, it also defines “remuneration” to include the 

“transfer[ ] of items or services for free or for other than fair market value” and 

thus is consistent with our view of the correct definition. Id.

For these reasons, the issue of fair market value is not limited to HCA’s safe 

harbor defense, as Relator suggests, but is rather something Relator must address 

in order to show that HCA offered or paid remuneration to physician tenants. 

Here, Relator argues that HCA passed remuneration to physician tenants through 

Tegra, so the critical question we must ask is whether physician tenants received 

anything of value from Tegra under or in connection with their leases in excess of

the fair market value of their lease payments.

Relator first points to the “low-end” rents that physician tenants paid for 

space in the MOB. But Relator concedes that the proposed rents were within the 

Case: 16-17059 Date Filed: 07/31/2019 Page: 10 of 20 
11

range of “market rates” for new construction. Appellant’s Br. at 20. And although 

the fair market rent range increased between the 2005 and 2007 appraisals, the 

appraiser determined that the increase was due to higher construction costs. 

Moreover, judging from the leases that Relator attached to his FAC, it appears that 

many leases were entered into during 2005 and 2006, prior to the 2007 appraisal, 

which would make them less “low-end.” 

Relator also points to profits received by physician tenants through the 

CFPAs as evidence of unlawful remuneration. But Relator has not shown that 

these agreements conferred any benefit in excess of fair market value. CFPAs

were offered only to tenants who would sign a ten-year lease, which was a longer 

term than the market average at the time those lease agreements were negotiated. 

In addition, Holladay’s two market rent studies conducted during 2005 confirmed 

the same fair market rent range before and after taking into account the CFPAs, 

thereby demonstrating that these agreements did not confer any additional value to 

physician tenants.

Relator also argues that HCA made free improvements to the offices of 

certain physician tenants and gave certain physician tenants restricted use waivers. 

But neither of these allegations is supported by sufficient facts. Relator does not 

tie the improvements to specific physician tenants who were or could be referral 

sources, nor does he present evidence that the use waivers were anything other 

Case: 16-17059 Date Filed: 07/31/2019 Page: 11 of 20 
12

than a standard exercise of discretion under the relevant leases or that HCA was 

required to ask for something in exchange for the use waivers. “[M]ere 

conclusions and unsupported factual allegations are legally insufficient to defeat a 

summary judgment motion.” Ellis, 432 F.3d at 1326.

For these reasons, we conclude that Relator has not shown that HCA 

conveyed any remuneration to physician tenants of the Centerpoint MOB, and 

therefore that Relator’s AKS claim fails on summary judgment.

iii. Stark Statute Claim

Relator’s second claim under the False Claims Act pertaining to Centerpoint

is that HCA violated the Stark Statute. See 42 U.S.C. § 1395nn(a). “In its most 

general terms, the Stark statute prohibits doctors from referring Medicare patients to 

a hospital if those doctors have certain specified types of ‘financial relationships’ 

with that hospital.” United States ex rel. Mastej v. Health Mgmt. Assocs., Inc., 591 

F. App'x 693, 698 (11th Cir. 2014) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 1395nn(a)(1)(A)). The Stark 

Statute also “prohibits that same hospital from presenting claims for payment to 

Medicare for any medical services it rendered to such referred patients.” Id. (citing 

42 U.S.C. § 1395nn(a)(1)(B)). A prohibited “financial relationship” includes a 

“compensation arrangement,” 42 U.S.C. § 1395nn(a)(2)(B), defined as “any 

arrangement involving any remuneration between a physician (or an immediate 

family member of such physician) and an entity [providing a designated health 

Case: 16-17059 Date Filed: 07/31/2019 Page: 12 of 20 
13

service],” subject to certain exceptions, 42 U.S.C. § 1395nn(h)(1)(A). 

“Remuneration,” in turn, “includes any remuneration, directly or indirectly, overtly 

or covertly, in cash or in kind.” 42 U.S.C. § 1395nn(h)(1)(B). Both direct and 

indirect compensation arrangements are therefore prohibited under the Stark Statute. 

In this case, there is no genuine factual dispute over whether a prohibited 

indirect compensation arrangement under the Stark Statute exists because it plainly 

does not. Regulations promulgated in part under 42 U.S.C. § 1395nn define an 

“indirect compensation agreement” as requiring, among other things, that 

compensation received by a referring physician “varies with, or takes into account, 

the volume or value of referrals or other business generated by the referring 

physician.” 42 C.F.R. § 411.354(c)(2)(ii). HCA has shown that there is no 

correlation between the size of physician tenants’ space leases and their referrals to 

HCA, Appellee’s Br. at 9, and Relator offers only conclusory statements that HCA 

“took into account the value of referrals” in planning the MOB, Appellant’s Br. at 

32–33. Even if Relator’s contention is true, it does not show that the rental rates or 

other benefits allegedly given by HCA to any specific physician tenant are at all 

correlated with the volume or value of referrals from that physician tenant. 

Therefore, because there is no real basis in the record from which to conclude that 

compensation paid by HCA to physician tenants varies with or takes into account 

Case: 16-17059 Date Filed: 07/31/2019 Page: 13 of 20 
14

the volume or value of referrals, there is no genuine factual dispute on this point. 

See Ellis, 432 F.3d at 1326.

Relator argues that the district court erred in considering this definition of an 

“indirect compensation arrangement” because it relates to exceptions under the 

Stark Statute rather than Relator’s prima facie burden. But Relator waived this 

argument by failing to raise it before the district court. See, e.g., Denis v. Liberty 

Mut. Ins. Co., 791 F.2d 846, 848–49 (11th Cir. 1986) (“Failure to raise an issue, 

objection or theory of relief in the first instance to the trial court generally is 

fatal.”). In fact, Relator cited approvingly to 42 C.F.R. § 411.354(c)(2) in his

Opposition to Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. App’x 159 at 9.

For these reasons, we conclude that Relator has not shown that there is a 

financial relationship between HCA and physician tenants that violates the Stark 

Statute. We therefore agree with the district court that HCA was entitled to 

summary judgment regarding Relator’s Centerpoint Claims.

B. Aventura Claims

The district court dismissed Relator’s Aventura Claims because it concluded 

that Relator “impermissibly use[d] information learned through discovery to 

supplement [these] allegations,” and that without this additional information, the 

SAC did not meet the heightened pleading standard of Rule 9(b). Bingham v. 

Case: 16-17059 Date Filed: 07/31/2019 Page: 14 of 20 
15

HCA, Inc., No. 13-23671-CIV, 2016 WL 6027115, at *4 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 14, 2016). 

On appeal, Relator argues that both conclusions were erroneous. We disagree. 

i. Grant of HCA’s motion to strike information

On July 22, 2015, the parties jointly moved to stay discovery pending 

resolution of HCA’s anticipated motion to dismiss. The district court denied that 

motion, and discovery began. HCA then moved to dismiss Relator’s complaint. 

On January 28, 2016, the district court granted HCA’s motion to dismiss Relator’s 

Aventura Claims but allowed Relator to amend his complaint regarding these

claims. Discovery, however, had proceeded while the district court considered and 

decided HCA’s motion to dismiss. On March 8, 2016, Relator filed his SAC, 

adding additional facts pertaining to the Aventura Claims, including information 

obtained through discovery. Thereafter, HCA filed a second motion to dismiss 

Relator’s Aventura Claims and a motion to strike certain alleged facts on the basis 

that Relator’s SAC impermissibly used information learned through discovery, and 

that, without that information, the SAC did not meet the heightened pleading 

standard of Rule 9(b). The district court agreed and granted both motions. 

Bingham, 2016 WL 6027115, at *4.

We review the district court’s grant of HCA’s motion to strike alleged facts

from Relator’s SAC under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) for an abuse of 

discretion. See Branch Banking & Tr. Co. v. Lichty Bros. Constr., Inc., 488 F. 

Case: 16-17059 Date Filed: 07/31/2019 Page: 15 of 20 
16

App’x 430, 434 (11th Cir. 2012); McCorstin v. U.S. Dep't of Labor, 630 F.2d 242, 

244 (5th Cir. 1980). “[T]he abuse of discretion standard allows a range of choice 

for the district court, so long as that choice does not constitute a clear error of 

judgment.” In re Rasbury, 24 F.3d 159, 168 (11th Cir. 1994) (internal quotation 

marks omitted).

Although courts should freely grant leave to amend pleadings, see Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 15(a)(2), amendments that include material obtained during discovery,

prior to a final decision on the motion to dismiss, may not be appropriate in cases 

to which the heighted pleading standard of Rule 9(b) applies if the amendment 

would allow the plaintiff to circumvent the purpose of Rule 9(b), see United States

ex rel. Keeler v. Eisai, Inc., 568 F. App’x 783, 804–05 (11th Cir. 2014). Applying 

Rule 9(b) to False Claims Act claims “ensures that the relator’s strong financial 

incentive to bring [a False Claims Act] claim—the possibility of recovering 

between fifteen and thirty percent of a treble damages award—does not precipitate 

the filing of frivolous suits.” United States ex rel. Atkins v. McInteer, 470 F.3d 

1350, 1360 (11th Cir. 2006). Indeed, “[t]he particularity requirement of Rule 9 is a 

nullity if Plaintiff gets a ticket to the discovery process without identifying a single 

claim.” Id. at 1359 (internal quotation marks omitted). 

We agree with the district court that, in this case, the goals of applying Rule 

9(b) to False Claims Act cases are advanced by striking information in Relator’s 

Case: 16-17059 Date Filed: 07/31/2019 Page: 16 of 20 
17

SAC that was learned through discovery, prior to a final decision on the motion to 

dismiss, because, as discussed further below, Relator’s FAC did not satisfy the 

heightened pleading standard of Rule 9(b). As the district court noted, it is 

important to discourage plaintiffs from being able to “learn the complaint’s bare 

essentials through discovery” which could “needlessly harm a defendants’ [sic] 

goodwill and reputation by bringing a suit that is, at best, missing some of its core 

underpinnings, and, at worst, are baseless allegations used to extract settlements.” 

Bingham, 2016 WL 6027115, at *4 (quoting Clausen, 290 F.3d at 1313 n.24). 

Similarly, prohibiting a relator “to use discovery to meet the requirements of Rule 

9(b) reflects, in part, a concern that a qui tam plaintiff, who has suffered no injury 

in fact, may be particularly likely to file suit as a pretext to uncover unknown 

wrongs.” Id. at *5 n.4 (internal quotation marks omitted). Finally, allowing a 

relator to amend a complaint after discovery would force the government to decide 

whether or not to intervene in the case without complete information. Id. at *5.

For these reasons, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its 

discretion in granting HCA’s motion to strike information in Relator’s SAC that 

was obtained through discovery.

ii. Grant of Motion to dismiss

“We review de novo the district court’s grant of a motion to dismiss under 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, accepting the factual allegations 

Case: 16-17059 Date Filed: 07/31/2019 Page: 17 of 20 
18

in the complaint as true and construing them in the light most favorable to the 

plaintiff.” Glover v. Liggett Grp., Inc., 459 F.3d 1304, 1308 (11th Cir. 2006) (per 

curiam). “A plaintiff must plausibly allege all the elements of the claim for relief. 

Conclusory allegations and legal conclusions are not sufficient; the plaintiffs ‘must 

state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Feldman v. Am. Dawn, Inc., 

849 F.3d 1333, 1339–40 (11th Cir. 2017) (citation omitted) (quoting and citing 

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 557, 570 (2007)).

Furthermore, “[a] complaint under the False Claims Act must meet the 

heightened pleading standard of Rule 9(b), which states ‘[i]n alleging fraud or 

mistake, a party must state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud 

or mistake.’” Hopper v. Solvay Pharm., Inc., 588 F.3d 1318, 1324 (11th Cir. 2009) 

(second alteration in original) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b)). “A False Claims Act 

complaint satisfies Rule 9(b) if it sets forth facts as to time, place, and substance of 

the defendant’s alleged fraud, specifically the details of the defendants’ allegedly 

fraudulent acts, when they occurred, and who engaged in them.” Id. (internal 

quotation marks omitted).

Considering Relator’s complaint after excising the additional information

obtained through discovery, we agree with the district court that the remaining 

allegations do not satisfy the pleading requirements of Rule 9(b). On appeal, 

Relator argues that it was incorrect for the district court to assume that all of the 

Case: 16-17059 Date Filed: 07/31/2019 Page: 18 of 20 
19

additional facts in his SAC were learned through discovery. Appellant’s Br. at 38. 

But Relator does not point to specific facts in the SAC that he learned prior to 

discovery. Instead, he points us back to his FAC, arguing that his FAC pleaded all 

of the “essential elements” of the Aventura Claims. Appellant’s Br. at 38. These

elements are stated in the FAC on “information and belief,” however, and Relator 

does not state with any particularity how HCA conveyed remuneration directly or 

indirectly to specific tenants of the Aventura MOB. App’x 14 ¶ 131, 134–35. 

Similarly, Relator’s allegations that leases entered into between HCA and 

Greenfield did not reflect fair market value are supported, if at all, only by 

Relator’s own calculations regarding the value of the land. App’x 14 ¶ 133, 136. 

On appeal, Relator also points to specific allegations in his SAC that find a 

parallel in the FAC. Appellant’s Br. at 39. But these allegations are similarly 

devoid of facts regarding the substance of HCA’s alleged misconduct and do not 

describe in any detail the alleged misconduct, when it occurred, and who engaged 

in it. See Hopper, 588 F.3d at 1324. For example, Relator states in a conclusory 

fashion that, based on information and belief, the total amount of the ground lease 

payment from HCA to Greenfield was less than fair market value. App’x 14 ¶ 135. 

Similarly, although Relator alleged that HCA’s Aventura scheme included 

“[v]aluable inducements offered and paid to referring physicians to encourage 

them to locate and maintain their offices on HCA hospital campuses” and 

Case: 16-17059 Date Filed: 07/31/2019 Page: 19 of 20 
20

“[c]ontrol over third-party medical office building owners’ relationships with their 

physician tenants . . . so as to ensure the flow of remuneration to physicians who 

referred patients to HCA,” Relator does not provide specific details or evidence to

support his claims that long-term ground leases were “[g]rossly undervalued” or 

included “[o]verly generous” terms. Id. ¶ 5–6.

Therefore, we agree with the district court that Relator’s allegations lack the 

“indicia of reliability” to support his Aventura Claims, Bingham, 2016 WL 

6027115, at *5 (internal quotation marks omitted), and that Relator has therefore 

failed to state a claim under the False Claims Act with respect to his Aventura 

Claims.

C. Conclusion

For these reasons, we AFFIRM the district court’s grant of judgment in 

favor of HCA regarding Relator’s Centerpoint Claims and Aventura Claims. 

AFFIRMED.

Case: 16-17059 Date Filed: 07/31/2019 Page: 20 of 20