Source reporting: Texas Scorecard
A federal lawsuit accusing Planned Parenthood entities of improperly billing Texas Medicaid may continue after the full Fifth Circuit dismissed an appeal for lack of jurisdiction, according to Texas Scorecard.
The case began in 2021 when an anonymous whistleblower sued the Planned Parenthood Federation of America and three Texas affiliates. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton later joined the action. The complaint alleges that the affiliates continued submitting Medicaid claims during a disputed period after their removal from the program.
The allegations involve Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas, Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast and Planned Parenthood South Texas. Texas Scorecard reported that the affiliates received approximately $10 million in Medicaid payments during the period at issue. The plaintiffs seek more than $1.8 billion by applying the False Claims Act's provisions for multiplied damages, statutory penalties and inflation adjustments.
Those amounts are claims, not a judgment. No final ruling has established that the defendants committed Medicaid fraud or owe the penalties requested. Planned Parenthood has characterized the case as politically motivated and maintains that its organizations complied with the law.
The latest development concerns appellate jurisdiction and attorney immunity rather than the truth of the underlying billing allegations. U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk in Amarillo denied a summary-judgment request by the national federation. The federation argued that it could not be held liable for conduct attributed to attorneys advising affiliated organizations.
A three-judge Fifth Circuit panel initially concluded that it could hear the appeal, reversed the district court and accepted the immunity argument. The whistleblower then obtained rehearing before the court's active judges.
On August 12, the en banc Fifth Circuit concluded that the appellate court lacked jurisdiction to consider the appeal at that stage. It dismissed the appeal, leaving Kacsmaryk's earlier decision in place and returning the case to his court for proceedings on the merits.
The ruling does not decide whether Medicaid claims were improper, whether the national federation is ultimately liable or what damages could be recovered. It determines that the defendants cannot use this particular appeal to end the case before the district court evaluates the substantive claims.
The public-integrity significance is substantial because the litigation concerns the administration and possible recovery of taxpayer-funded Medicaid payments. It also addresses when defendants in False Claims Act cases can seek immediate appellate review of immunity arguments. Future district-court findings will be needed before allegations, defenses and requested penalties can be treated as established facts.