In yet another post-Escobar case involving the application of Rule 9(b), the Seventh Circuit reaffirmed the critical role of that rule in weeding out thinly-supported qui tam claims. In United States ex rel. Presser v Acacia Mental Health Clinic, LLC, No. 14-2804, 2016 WL 4555648 (7th Cir. Sept. 1, 2016), the relator, a nurse practitioner, brought FCA claims against her employer, a mental health clinic, alleging that the clinic provided, and billed for, medically unnecessary services and required nurse practitioners and receptionists to use a billing code reserved exclusively for psychological assessments and medical evaluations performed by therapists or psychiatrists.