Source: http://va.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180313_0000187.WVA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 12:17:30+00:00

Document:
FindACase | United States ex rel. Branscome v. Blue Ridge Home Health Services, Inc.
United States ex rel. Branscome v. Blue Ridge Home Health Services, Inc.
BLUE RIDGE HOME HEALTH SERVICES, INC., et al., Defendants.
Plaintiff Kimberly Branscome, a physical therapy assistant, brings this action against her former employer, Blue Ridge Home Health Services (BRHH); a BRHH physical therapist, Jeffery Owens (Owens); and BRHH president and owner, Dustin Snow (Snow). Branscome alleges that defendants submitted false Medicare claims, used false records material to false Medicare claims, used false records to avoid their obligation to repay the government, and retaliated against her by terminating her employment, all in violation of the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3729 et seq.
Before the court are two motions: (1) defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), and (2) defendants' motion to strike the complaint in its entirety for Branscome's serving an un-redacted copy on Snow in violation of the court's order. (Dkt. No. 19.) The matter has been fully briefed, and the court heard oral argument on August 25, 2017. For the reasons set forth below, the court will grant defendants' motion to dismiss and deny defendants' motion to strike.
To survive a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a plaintiff's allegations must “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). This standard “requires the plaintiff to articulate facts, when accepted as true, that ‘show' that the plaintiff has stated a claim entitling him to relief, i.e., the ‘plausibility of entitlement to relief.'” Francis v. Giacomelli, 588 F.3d 186, 193 (4th Cir. 2009) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678). The plausibility standard requires more than “a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
In determining whether the plaintiff has met this plausibility standard, the court must accept as true all well-pleaded facts in the complaint and in any documents incorporated into or attached to the complaint. Sec'y of State for Defence v. Trimble Navigation Ltd., 484 F.3d 700, 705 (4th Cir. 2007). Further, it must “draw all reasonable factual inferences from those facts in the plaintiff's favor, ” Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 244 (4th Cir. 1999), but it need not “accept legal conclusions couched as facts or ‘unwarranted inferences, unreasonable conclusions, or arguments, '” Wag More Dogs, LLC v. Cozart, 680 F.3d 359, 365 (4th Cir. 2012) (quoting Giarratano v. Johnson, 521 F.3d 298, 302 (4th Cir. 2008)).

References: v. 
 v. 
 § 3729
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.