Case Name: Richard FEINGOLD, individually and ex rel. United States of America, United States of America, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. PALMETTO GOVERNMENT BENEFITS ADMINISTRATORS, John Doe, etc., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-05-20
Citations: 278 F. App'x 923
Docket Number: No. 07-11170
Parties: Richard FEINGOLD, individually and ex rel. United States of America, United States of America, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. PALMETTO GOVERNMENT BENEFITS ADMINISTRATORS, John Doe, etc., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before ANDERSON, HULL and SILER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 278
Pages: 923–923

Head Matter:
Richard FEINGOLD, individually and ex rel. United States of America, United States of America, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. PALMETTO GOVERNMENT BENEFITS ADMINISTRATORS, John Doe, etc., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 07-11170.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
May 20, 2008.
Atlee W. Wampler, III, Wampler Buchanan Walker Chabrow Banciella & Stanley, P.A., Miami, FL, Sidney R. Berger, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
Melissa A. Meister, W. Jay Devecchio, Jenner & Block LLP, Matthew S. Hellman, Darren Labetzky, Washington, DC, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before ANDERSON, HULL and SILER, Circuit Judges.
Honorable Eugene Siler, Jr., United States Circuit Judge for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
After oral argument and careful consideration, we readily conclude that the judgment of the district court is due to be affirmed. With respect to Counts III and IV of the complaint, we conclude that we are bound by our prior panel opinion in United States ex rel. Body v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama, Inc., 156 F.3d 1098 (11th Cir.1998). Accordingly, defendants are immune with respect to the allegations of Counts III and IV.
With respect to Counts I and II, we conclude that the district court committed no reversible error in dismissing those counts for failure to comply with Fed. R.Civ.P. 9(b).
Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.