Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, WHISTLEBLOWERS—D. Md.: Qui Tam suit alleging skilled nursing facility violated the FCA gets dismissed, (Oct 20, 2025)

By Donielle Tigay Stutland, J.D.

The court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the first-to-file bar applies.

The U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland granted a motion to dismiss a qui tam suit brought by two relators against Anchorage SNF, LLC, a skilled nursing facility (“SNF”), its former parent company White Oak Healthcare LLC (“White Oak”) and its current parent company CommuniCare Health Services, Inc. (“CommuniCare”). The court concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction based on the first to file rule. Although here the relators' action related to conduct at the Anchorage SNF in Maryland, the court found that the relators' claims were related to an earlier filed suit because they allege an "overwhelmingly similar" fraudulent scheme by the same core actor. The court relied on the recent decision in Rosales, to conclude that although the earlier qui tam complaint did not name Anchorage, CommuniCare, or White Oak, the False Claims Act’s first-to-file rule does not create a bright-line distinction based on the identities of the defendants (U.S. ex rel Goebel v. Anchorage SNF, LLC, No. JKB-17-00722 (D. Md. Oct. 10, 2025)).

Background. The relators case alleges fraud occurring at Anchorage, a skilled nursing facility (“SNF”). Anchorage provides both short and long-term rehabilitation and senior healthcare services, including both nursing and therapy care. From June 2007 until January 2016, Anchorage was owned by White Oak. Since January 2016, Anchorage has been owned by CommuniCare. CommuniCare “is a national provider of post-acute care.” It operates 51 facilities across five states, including Maryland. Collectively, Anchorage, White Oak, and CommuniCare are the defendants (“Defendants”). The defendants contracted with Select Rehabilitation, LLC ("Select"), an Illinois-based national therapy service provider, to staff Medicare patients at Anchorage with therapists and other medical professionals.

The two relators are Michael Goebel and Bill Coleman. Goebel is a Maryland resident and a certified occupational therapy assistant. Goebel began working at Select in September 2010. He served as the program manager at Anchorage for five years. Goebel still works for Select but is now assigned to another SNF called Snow Hill. Snow Hill is not affiliated with Defendants. Coleman is a Maryland resident and a physical therapist. He worked at both Snow Hill and Anchorage. Coleman resigned from Select in September 2016.

Relators allege that Select and Defendants engaged in a multi-part scheme to defraud the government, which included fraudulent billing practices and mistreating patients. However, prior to bringing their allegations, Patrick Carson, brought a separate suit against Select and several SNFs in Pennsylvania as well as their owners. Carson was physical therapist assistant assigned to five different SNFs in Pennsylvania affiliated with Select. Carson brought a qui tam suit against Select, the five SNFs he worked at, and three companies which owned the SNFs. Carson alleged that “[t]o obtain the highest reimbursement possible for skilled nursing facility stays and the therapy administered during those stays,” these entities “utilize[d] improper billing practices and methodologies” to present false claims for payment to the government.

The relators filed their original complaint in this action on March 16, 2017, after Carson's suit, and amended it on February 5, 2025. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss Goebel and Coleman’s qui tam suit, arguing that because of the FCA’s first-to-file bar, if Relators’ claims are related to the claims in the first lawsuit brought by Carson, then Relators’ claims must be dismissed.

Law of the Case Doctrine. The defendants did not dispute that the amended complaint contains no new factual allegations. The court indicated that this factor favors the law of the case doctrine being applied.

The court first applied the law-of-the-case doctrine, adhering to a prior ruling by Judge Savage in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (where the case was previously transferred), which determined that the relators' claims are related to Carson's earlier-filed suit because they allege an "overwhelmingly similar" fraudulent scheme by the same core actor (Select), even though the relators' action focuses on Anchorage in Maryland and names different (but related) defendants.

First To File Doctrine. The relator next argues that the first to file bar does not apply because their action names completely different defendants than the Carson action. However, the court noted that like Carson’s qui tam suit, Relators allege a scheme of improper billing and patient mistreatment involving Select.

The court pointed to a recently decided case, Rosales, involved a fraudulent billing scheme at various facilities all owned by the same entity. The court began by explaining that the “first-to-file rule must be applied claim-by-claim and defendant-by-defendant.” However, the “first-to-file rule” does not create a bright-line distinction based on the identities of the defendants. Thus, the court indicated that even if the claims against Amedisys, a parent company, were barred, that did not automatically mean that the claims against the medical director—who was not named in the earlier suit—were as well.

Ultimately, in Rosales, the Fourth Circuit held that the claims against the medical director and his practice were barred by the first-to-file rule. Highlighted the court, “The emphasis is on the facts at play and whether the earlier-filed lawsuit was sufficient to promptly alert the government to the essential facts of a fraudulent scheme, not necessarily the identities of the defendants named in the complaints.” In that case, based on the “facts at play,” the Fourth Circuit found that the claims against the medical director and his practice were barred because the government was sufficiently on notice of the fraudulent scheme alleged by Rosales. The court found that in the earlier qui tam complaint, the allegations against the medical directors were described as “systematic” and “wide-spread” at the parent company’s facilities.

In the instant case, the court indicated that the same logic from Rosales applies to the substantive FCA counts in this case. Here, (1) Select is analogous to Amedisys, (2) Defendants are analogous to the Amedisys NC medical director and his practice, and (3) SNFs and their owners, generally. The first question then is if the Carson complaint contained allegations against SNFs and their owners. The court pointed out that here, the Carson complaint specifically named SNFs and their owners as defendants.

The court next looked at whether the allegations against SNFs in Carson were characterized as nationwide, such that the government was put on notice that other SNFs contracting with Select were also violating the FCA. While the court emphasized that it was a close call, the court concluded that the Carson complaint’s allegations surpass Rosales’ low bar. For instance, the Carson complaint states: “[T]he Defendants systematically engaged in a practice of billing for treatments that were to be delivered in the future.” And sometimes, “no further such treatment was ever rendered to the patient and management knew of this fact.” Id. It also described an individual who “knew that... improper treatments were done on a nation-wide basis because of where he had worked.” Several paragraphs of the complaint also discussed Select and the SNFs’ corporate-wide policies that called for delaying discharge of patients in order to bill the government for more treatment hours. The court also highlighted that Carson made claims under not just the federal FCA but under fifteen state false claims laws. The court found that “the earlier-filed lawsuit was sufficient to promptly alert the government to the essential facts of a fraudulent scheme.” Although the Carson complaint did not name Anchorage, CommuniCare, or White Oak, the court stressed that “the False Claims Act’s first-to-file rule does not create a bright-line distinction based on the identities of the defendants.” The court concluded that the first-to-file bar precludes Relators’ claims against Defendants.

The case is No. JKB-17-00722.

Judge: Bredar, J.

Attorneys: Allen F. Loucks, Office of the U.S. Attorney, for U.S. Jay Paul Holland (Joseph Greenwald and Laake PA) for The State of Maryland. Thomas H. Barnard (Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC) for Anchorage SNF, LLC d/b/a Anchorage Healthcare Center, Communicare Health Services, Inc. and White Oak Healthcare, LLC d/b/a White Oak Senior Care.

Companies: The State of Maryland; Anchorage SNF, LLC d/b/a Anchorage Healthcare Center; Communicare Health Services, Inc.; White Oak Healthcare, LLC d/b/a White Oak Senior Care

Cases: Whistleblowers GovernmentContracts Procedure MarylandNews