“In this case, the plaintiff’s averments regarding the defendant’s billing practices are criminal in nature. For example, the plaintiff’s original complaint alleges that ‘BCH began requesting that the Plaintiff see multiple patients at the same time, bill units in empty time slots, and bill incorrectly. However, Plaintiff refused….’ Such practice could subject individuals to criminal prosecution for health care fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1347. The Court recognizes that a question remains regarding whether the plaintiff was discharged solely because of his refusal. However, at this stage of the proceedings, the Court is charged to resolve any factual conflicts in favor of the plaintiff. Accordingly, the Court denies the defendants’ motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s wrongful termination claim.” 2016 WL 3418852, at *7 (citation omitted).
Haynes v. Breathing Center of Houston, No. 4:15-CV-02569, 2016 WL 3418852 (S.D. Tex. June 21, 2016).