Help

BI’s Article search uses Boolean search capabilities. If you are not familiar with these principles, here are some quick tips.

To search specifically for more than one word, put the search term in quotation marks. For example, “workers compensation”. This will limit your search to that combination of words.

To search for a combination of terms, use quotations and the & symbol. For example, “hurricane” & “loss”.

Login Register Subscribe

Nurses' retaliation case against contractor in Iraq revived

Reprints

A U.S. appellate court has reinstated retaliation charges filed by two nurses working for a U.S. State Department medical services contractor in Iraq who were allegedly fired after they complained about the quality of health care provided to patients.

Nurses Ronald and Ramona Young, a married couple, were hired by CHS Middle East L.L.C., a unit of Cape Canaveral, Florida-based Comprehensive Health Services Inc., which had a $61.5 million services agreement with the State Department to provide medical services to nonmilitary personnel in Iraq, according to Wednesday’s ruling by the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia in Ronald P. Young; Ramona Young v. CHS Middle East L.L.C..

Both complained about the quality of health care being provided, including that CHS attempted to use expired medicine, and a lack of equipment and properly trained medical personnel, according to the ruling.

They were terminated in December 2011, two days after contacting the State Department to raise their concerns. The Youngs filed suit, charging they had been retaliated against because of their complaints in violation of the whistleblowing provisions under the False Claims Act.

The U.S. District Court in Alexandria, Virginia, dismissed the case, and the Youngs appealed.

The sole element on which the CHA based its motion to dismiss was that they had not plausibly alleged they had engaged in protected activity, said the appeals court.

But a three-judge panel of the 4th Circuit unanimously agreed that they had done so, based on the complaints they had made.

“At this stage, we are obligated to view only the Youngs’ pleadings, and to view them generously in the Youngs’ favor,” states the ruling. “Doing so, we conclude the Youngs have sufficiently (pleaded) that they engaged in protected activity” under the False Claims Act, said the ruling, in remanding the case for further proceedings.

Read Next