Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, WHISTLEBLOWERS—M.D. Fla.: Whistleblower doctor wins: court tosses time-barred counterclaim for bonus repayment, (Jul 20, 2026)

By Erick Jorgenson

The good doctor will keep his signing bonus after the Court found the counterclaim seeking to recoup the signing bonus was time-barred and dismissed the counterclaim with prejudice.

The Court determined that the Owner Physician and Pain Management Center’s counterclaim seeking the return of the $25,000 signing bonus from the Relator doctor was time-barred and dismissed it with prejudice because it was not filed within the statute of limitations. The counterclaim arose after the Relator filed a qui tam action under the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3729, alleging Medicare and Medicaid fraud against his employer; the Owner and Center sought repayment based on an employment agreement provision requiring the bonus be returned if the Relator’s employment ended for any reason within three years (U.S. ex rel. Raiten v. Korunda Medical, LLC, No. 2:29-cv-28-SPC-NPM (M.D. Fla. July 11, 2026)).

A physician who worked for a pain management practice from February 2016 until July 2018 received a $25,000 signing bonus when he was hired under an employment agreement that required repayment of the bonus if his employment ended for any reason within three years of his start date. During his employment, the physician allegedly objected to what he believed was a scheme to defraud Medicare and Medicaid through fabricated diagnoses, improper billing practices, and referrals to affiliated entities. He claimed that he was disciplined and ultimately terminated after refusing to participate in the alleged conduct. After his employment ended, he filed a qui tam action under the False Claims Act, which remained under seal until the government declined to intervene in December 2025. Once the case was unsealed, the practice and its owner asserted a breach-of-contract counterclaim seeking repayment of the signing bonus based on the employment agreement's reimbursement provision.

The alleged “lucrative” Medicare and Medicaid fraud. The Relator alleged that the Owner and Center falsified patient records through fabricating diagnoses to “justify billing monthly for urine testing, which proved lucrative.” Further, the relator alleged that the Owner and Center submitted false medical records indicating performance of nerve block procedures when “less lucrative” injections took place. Moreover, the Relator alleged that the Center “funneled” patient referrals to a clinic and lab owned by the Owner to increase fraudulent billings, with excess income paid to the Owner’s wife via issuing payments to the non-profit she ran. Finally, the Relator alleged that the Owner and Center billed Medicare and Medicaid for services the Owner was not present for nor supervised. He even sometimes failed to have licensed personnel present, per the complaint. Due to the Relator not wanting to partake, the Owner fired the Relator per the original filing in 2019. After the United States declined to intervene in December 2025, the case was unsealed, the Relator exercised his right to prosecute the case, and defendant filed a counterclaim for the bonus.

The counterclaim is permissive and therefore time-barred. The Court found that the counterclaim the defendant filed was permissive. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 13(a)(1)(A) says a counterclaim is compulsory when out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the opposing party’s claim.” Permissive counterclaims are all claims not compulsory. The distinction is significant as filing a complaint tolls the statute of limitations of any compulsory counterclaims while permissive counterclaims are not tolled. As the action was done under seal originally in 2019, the Owner and Center would not know they are under investigation until December 2025, which would time bar any permissive counterclaim relating to breach of contract under Fla. Stat. Ann. § 95.11. Fla. Stat. Ann. § 95.11 holds that there is a five-year statute of limitations for breach of contract which has been long passed by time of the filing of the counterclaim.

The Counterclaim Is Permissive Under the “Logical Relation Test.” In the Eleventh Circuit, courts use the “logical relation test” to determine whether a counterclaim is compulsory or not. Under Montgomery Ward Dev. Corp. v. Juster, 932 F.2d 1378, 1381 (11th Cir. 1991), a logical relationship exists when (1) the “same aggregate of operative facts serve as the basis for both claims” or (2) the aggregate core of the facts that the relator’s claim relies on “activates additional legal rights in a party defendant that would otherwise remain dormant.” The test also is applied loosely with application using a “broad, realistic interpretation.”

The Court found the first prong was not satisfied as there was no sharing of “operative facts” as required by Montgomery. The Court explained that the Relator’s anti-retaliation claim turned on (1) whether he engaged in FCA protected conduct, (2) if the Owner and Center knew Relator’s protected conduct, and (3) whether there was adverse action taken against the Relator. Meanwhile, the Owner’s and Center’s counterclaim rested on when the termination occurred and whether the Relator was obligated to return the bonus. The motive of the Relator’s firing is relevant as a defense, it is not relevant to the counterclaim. The Court held that it is not enough that the employment of the Relator is related to both the Relator’s claim and the Owner’s and Center’s counterclaim for the counterclaim to be compulsory. Instead, there must be something more. Finally, the Court found that the second prong failed as the Owner and Center had the ability to sue and recover the bonus the moment the Relator’s employment ended.

With the counterclaim time-barred, the Court declined to analyze whether servicing of the counterclaim was proper or whether supplemental jurisdiction should be exercised.

The case is No. 2:19-cv-28-SPC-NPM.

Judges: Chappell, S.

Attorneys: Benjamin H. Yormak (Yormak Employment & Disability Law) for the U.S. Susan Virginia Warner (Pierson Ferdinand LLP) for Korunda Medical, LLC.

Companies: Korunda Medical, LLC

Cases: Whistleblowers Procedure Discharge FloridaNews