⚖ Oral Arguments, with Context

Matthew Thomas, a former quality-compliance director at Premier Home Health Care, challenges the dismissal of his whistleblower lawsuit. He alleged that the company billed Medicaid for services not properly provided, including care lacking required physician orders and nursing assessments, and failed to return overpayments. He also says he was fired for reporting the problems to management. The False Claims Act lets a private person, called a relator, sue in the government's name over fraud involving public funds. Here, the federal and state governments declined to take over the case; Thomas pursued it himself. The district judge dismissed his federal claims before trial and denied another amendment to the complaint. That was a decision about whether the allegations were legally sufficient, not a trial finding that fraud did or did not occur. Rule nine B requires particularity: specific facts describing the alleged fraud. Chorches and Gallian permit pleading without identified invoices when specific facts support a strong inference of false claims and show why the identifying information is peculiarly within the company's knowledge. The judges question whether Thomas has supplied that explanation. Regulatory noncompliance does not automatically establish a false claim. Materiality concerns whether a misrepresentation could influence payment. A reverse false claim concerns knowingly and improperly avoiding an obligation to return government money, rather than fraudulently obtaining it. The separate retaliation claim asks whether Thomas's reports were protected efforts to stop False Claims Act violations. The parties dispute whether his ordinary compliance duties defeat that protection. Proving the employer actually committed fraud is not required for retaliation. Timothy McInnis will seek to revive Thomas's claims and obtain permission to amend, or revise, the complaint. Premier's side is submitted on its written brief, without oral argument.

United States ex rel. Thomas v. Premier Home Health Care Services (No. 25-3007) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, argued October 20, 2026.