In fact, during the Department of Surgery’s large scale review of files, which occurred in late 1996 and early 1997, “checking the completeness of documentation” in the medical files and contacting the attending physicians to obtain the necessary documentation was central to plaintiffs job duties. As her deposition testimony illustrates, plaintiffs “investigatory activity” consisted of checking the completeness of documentation in the medical files she was coding and contacting the attending physicians who serviced the patients named in those files to obtain the necessary documentation to bill. These investigatory activities were' identical to plaintiffs job duties. Thus, they were not done’in furtherance of uncovering fraudulent activity. See, e.g., Robertson, 32 F.3d at 950-952 (<HOLDING>). Even if plaintiffs actions were done in
holding that a plaintiff must be investigating fraud in order to bring a fca suit to be protected under  3730h holding that a plaintiff must show antitrust injury in order to bring an antitrust lawsuit recognizing that a school district must be a prevailing party in order to be entitled to attorneys fees under the idea holding that the rico bar applies even where the plaintiff does not have standing to bring a securities fraud action holding that motor vehicle lender must be compensated for depreciation of collateral in order to be adequately protected