Federal judge trims UVA Health lawsuit and clears the 2026 trial calendar
A federal judge has narrowed a sprawling lawsuit brought by four physicians against former UVA Health leaders, dismissing several claims without prejudice and canceling a jury trial that had been set for late 2026. The case now moves forward on a more limited set of allegations, centered on retaliation claims and a revised theory of liability that plaintiffs filed after the June ruling.
The lawsuit, filed Oct. 3, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia, accuses former UVA Health CEO K. Craig Kent, MD, and members of the health system’s leadership of fraudulent billing and documentation practices and of retaliating against physicians who objected. The defendants have denied those allegations. Court records show the case has already been pared back as parties dropped out and the judge ruled on dismissal motions.
The litigation began with four current and former UVA physicians: Jeffrey Young, MD; Kenan Yount, MD; Mark Roeser, MD; and John Kern, MD. Defendants include Dr. Kent; Melina Kibbe, MD, former dean of the UVA School of Medicine; Wendy Horton, PharmD, former CEO of UVA Health University Medical Center; physicians Allan Tsung, MD, Ourania Preventza, MD, and Kim de la Cruz, MD; the Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia; and UVA Physicians Group.
A case like this rarely turns on a single claim. Civil litigation of this kind often rises or falls on standing, the reach of whistleblower statutes, and whether the facts line up with the exact legal theory pleaded in the complaint.
RICO claims fell first, with the court rejecting the injury theory
On June 2, Judge Norman Moon granted in part and denied in part motions to dismiss the first amended complaint. The most consequential cut came from the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act claims, which the court dismissed. Citing a 2000 Supreme Court decision, the order held that alleged harms such as demotion and being pushed out of jobs do not amount to the kind of direct injury to business or property required for civil RICO standing.
That ruling matters because civil RICO is not a general-purpose workplace remedy. It is reserved for injuries directly caused by racketeering activity, and the court found the plaintiffs’ alleged employment harms did not fit that framework. The result was a substantial narrowing of the case before any jury ever heard the evidence.
The same order also canceled the jury trial that had been scheduled for November and December 2026. No new trial date has been set.
Retaliation claims survived in part, but not against individual leaders
The June order also dismissed False Claims Act and Virginia Fraud Against Taxpayers Act retaliation claims against the individual medical leaders. The court found those statutes do not permit claims against supervisors in their individual capacities. Dr. Roeser’s retaliation claims under those laws were dismissed as well, because the complaint did not sufficiently allege protected activity tied to fraud against government programs.
Even so, not every retaliation theory disappeared. Claims by Dr. Young, Dr. Yount and Dr. Kern against UVA and UVA Physicians Group under the federal and state false-claims statutes were not dismissed at that stage. The court deferred ruling on the defendants’ sovereign immunity arguments, leaving an important jurisdictional issue unresolved.
The plaintiffs also lost their whistleblower claims under Virginia law against UVA and UVA Physicians Group. Those dismissals further narrowed the path forward and forced the case into a revised pleading posture.
The revised complaint recasts the dispute around direct victimization
On June 15, the physicians filed a second amended complaint. The new filing reasserts the RICO and RICO conspiracy claims against all defendants, but it reframes the alleged harm. Instead of focusing only on employment fallout, the amended complaint says the physicians were direct victims of extortion and witness tampering aimed at them.
Retaliation claims now run only against UVA and UVA Physicians Group. The complaint’s legal strategy is clear: preserve the core dispute while trying to meet the standing requirements that led to the earlier dismissal. In practical terms, the revised pleading attempts to move the case from a workplace grievance model into one that fits the civil RICO structure the judge found lacking before.
Defendants say the factual core has not changed
In early July, all defendants moved to dismiss the revised complaint. Dr. Kent, Dr. Kibbe, Dr. Tsung and Dr. Horton argued the physicians still lack standing and that the new complaint “does not change the underlying facts; it simply changes the labels.” UVA again raised sovereign immunity, the same issue the court had deferred in June.
The physicians responded in an Aug. 3 filing that the revised complaint “plausibly alleges each element” of their claims and that “the motions should be denied.” Judge Moon heard arguments Aug. 18 and has not yet ruled.
The defendants’ standing argument is central. If the court concludes the physicians still have not alleged the kind of injury or causal link required by the statutes they invoke, the revised complaint could meet the same end as the first. If the court sees the new pleading as materially different, at least some claims may survive into discovery.
A narrowed dispute now hangs on pleading precision and immunity
The case no longer resembles the broad attack that was filed at the start. The commonwealth of Virginia is no longer a defendant, after being removed from the case as of Feb. 4. On May 5, two representatives of deceased patients’ estates voluntarily dismissed their claims and left the litigation. What remains is a tighter, more legally technical fight over retaliation, standing, and sovereign immunity.
For health systems and academic medical centers, disputes like this often become less about the underlying workplace allegations and more about how precisely those allegations are framed under federal and state statutes. Civil RICO demands direct injury to business or property. Whistleblower and false-claims laws depend on protected activity, statutory coverage, and the identity of the defendant. When those elements do not align, even serious allegations can be pared back before a trial date is reached.
The University of Virginia and an attorney for Dr. de la Cruz declined to comment. Becker’s has reached out to attorneys for the plaintiffs and defendants and will update the matter if additional information becomes available.