when he claimed that: While still an employee of the Hospital, [he] pointed out to his superiors all the way up to the president, the inadequate staffing, inconsistent administration of treatment orders, the absence of blood gas quality control, and inappropriate documentation in the administration of care and treatment of patients throughout the Hospital, as well as the failure to meet regulatory standards which are required for reimbursement by Medicare and Medicaid. We do not agree with Karvelas that such activities constitute protected activity. It is true that Karvelas need not have known that his actions could lead to a qui tarn suit under the FCA, or even that a False Claims Act existed, in order to demonstrate that he engaged in protected conduct. See Yesudian, 153 F.3d at 741 (<HOLDING>). However, conduct protected by the FCA is
holding that a state agency is not a person subject to suit under federal false claims act holding but for requirement not satisfied where investigation had no unique special factual features that but for the requirement of the act would have permitted a quick termination if the investigation were conducted outside the act holding that even an investigation conducted without contemplation  or knowledge of the legal possibility of  a false claims act suit can end up being in furtherance of such an action holding that apparel cleaners submission of false statements of their receipts a percentage of which were to be paid to the united states did not constitute false claims within the meaning of the federal false claims act holding that the provisions of the false claims act allowing suit imposing liability on any person who presented false claims to the federal government did not allow suits against state governments