Opinion ID: 4023845
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The New Theory Issue.

Text: Relator argues the district court erred in refusing to consider a theory first articulated in Relator’s summary judgment papers -- that AAKC violated Step Three because its anesthesiologists were not present during extubation, one of the “most demanding aspects of the anesthesia plan.” Relator argues that its Amended Complaint alleged that anesthesiologists were not present at extubation, and that extubation is part of emergence and therefore need not be separately pleaded. But an FCA claim that an anesthesiologist was not present at extubation, a “demanding aspect” not specifically referenced in Step Three, is different than an FCA claim that an anesthesiologist was never present during “emergence,” which is specifically referred to in Step Three. Whether due to careless pleading or an attempt to “lay in the weeds,” Relator’s litigation tactic deprived the United States of an opportunity to -8- consider this theory before declining to join in the action. The district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to consider the theory.3