Yesterday, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision holding that the scienter element of the False Claims Act (“FCA”) is met if a defendant subjectively knew his or her claims were false and submitted them anyway. See United States ex rel. Schutte v. SuperValu Inc. and United States ex rel. Proctor v. Safeway. The Court’s ruling was narrow and avoided the more challenging—and common—issues raised during oral argument (which we previously discussed here).
Companies regularly are required to interpret ambiguous and vague regulatory provisions. Today, the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a pair of consolidated cases to determine whether a defendant’s subjective interpretation of an ambiguous regulation is relevant to determining the knowledge (or scienter) element of the False Claims Act or, as the Seventh Circuit held in the case below, that once a defendant can articulate an objectively reasonable interpretation its contemporaneously held subjective belief is irrelevant to the knowledge inquiry. The issue is a significant one for both the government and relators on one side, and potential defendants on the other, as False Claims Act (FCA) liability imposes treble damages and penalties exceeding $20,000 per claim as well as relators’ attorneys’ fees and costs.
Continue Reading Supreme Court Hears Arguments on False Claims Act Scienter Standard
Arguments were heard in the case of United States ex rel. Polansky v. Executive Health Resources, Inc., No. 21-1052 to determine whether and on what statutory grounds, the government, after initially declining to intervene, may subsequently intervene and dismiss a qui-tam False Claims Act (“FCA”) suit. The Court’s decision will resolve a dispute regarding the balance of power between an individual whistleblower and the Department of Justice (“DOJ”).
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (“CMS”) has issued a proposed rule which would amend the existing regulations for reporting and returning identified overpayments (the “Proposed Rule”). Specifically, with respect to the meaning of “identification” of overpayment, CMS proposes to eliminate the “reasonable diligence” (or traditional negligence) standard and replace it with the False Claims Act’s (“FCA’s”) standard of “knowing” and “knowingly” (i.e., reckless disregard or deliberate ignorance of a potential overpayment).
The United States’ recent False Claims Act (“FCA”) prosecution in United States v. Prometheus Group, et al., is a reminder that the government will use the FCA to target medical device manufacturers for off-label use of medical devices, even where healthcare providers have decided the use is safe and effective. In Prometheus Group, the government alleges that the defendant medical device manufacturer trained providers to re-use disposable rectal probes against U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) recommendations, causing the providers to submit false claims for payment to Medicare for the services mis-using the probes. The complaint alleges that Prometheus put vulnerable Medicare patients at risk to gain a marketing advantage by reducing overhead costs associated with its systems. The message to medical device manufacturers is clear: even without submitting claims to the government themselves, manufacturers can face FCA liability for suggesting providers use their devices in any way the FDA has not approved (and in this case, warned against).
Continue Reading The Government Seeks FCA Liability for Off-Label Use of Medical Devices
The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals recently tossed a $5.5 million jury verdict finding that a physician violated the False Claims Act (“FCA”) by submitting claims for items and services ordered subsequent to a violation of the Federal health care program anti-kickback statute (“AKS”). According to the appellate court, the trial court’s jury instruction “brushed aside causation” and “misinterpreted” a 2010 amendment to the AKS.
On June 21, 2022 the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Polansky v. Exec. Health Res., 17 F.4th 376 (3d Cir. 2021), allowing the Court to review the Department of Justice’s (“DOJ”) authority to dismiss qui tam suits brought under the False Claims Act (“FCA”), over objections by the relators. The case invites the high Court to decide two key issues: (1) whether the DOJ has the authority to dismiss qui tam suits where it declined to intervene, and (2) what standard of review applies to such requests for dismissal.
A major California-based health care system, Sutter Health, and several of its medical practice foundation affiliates have agreed to pay a total of $90 million to settle allegations that they violated the False Claims Act (“FCA”) by knowingly submitting inaccurate information about the health status of beneficiaries enrolled in Sutter Health’s contracted Medicare Advantage (“MA”) Plans.[1] The Sutter Health settlement is the largest FCA settlement ever paid by a health care provider for alleged MA fraud.
Continue Reading Sutter Health Settles Medicare Fraud Case For $90 Million: The Largest Settlement For Medicare Advantage Fraud
The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act provided trillions in economic relief in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, including hundreds of billions of dollars in aid for the healthcare industry. Regulators in the healthcare industry have also adjusted regulations and procedures in response to the changing landscape caused by the pandemic. While the CARES Act and regulatory changes provide much-needed help, accepting funds and navigating the regulatory changes can add many legal pitfalls to an already cluttered regulatory scheme. As the government prepares to prosecute fraud and abuse by recipients of CARES Act funds, healthcare entities—the top payors of government enforcement and qui tam dollars—should take care to avoid claims of misconduct under the CARES Act.
Continue Reading Tips for the Unwary: Precautions Against Liability for Healthcare Businesses Receiving CARES Act Funds
Introduction
Federal and state governments are ready to roll out over one trillion dollars in funding in response to the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. As past is often prologue, we expect this new round of massive government spending to someday be subjected to strict government oversight, targeted audits and investigations, and whistleblowers all searching for potential fraud, waste and abuse. Economic downturns and the unfortunate necessity of layoffs may also lead to an increased risk of whistleblower claims by former employees. Flooding the healthcare industry and other negatively impacted industry streams with hundreds of billions in aid will no doubt prove too tempting for the ever-present fraudsters in society who are always looking to take advantage. As we have learned from past crises, however, when government enforcement eventually gets around to casting its False Claims Act (FCA) nets far and wide in search of potential fraud and abuse, many unwary businesses may be ensnared along with the usual fraudsters because of their sloppy or reckless practices. Deficient practices today could trigger an FCA investigation or enforcement action tomorrow along with all of its draconian treble damages and penalties. This article details the risks businesses face under the FCA when responding to COVID-19, and provides guidance on how to guard against them now.
The “Granston Memo” has proven to be a boon again in 2019 for False Claims Act (“FCA”) defendants. In a January 15, 2019 Sheppard Mullin FCA Defense Blog article, we highlighted a growing movement by the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) to utilize its dismissal power on meritless and burdensome qui tam FCA cases following an internal policy memorandum issued in early 2018, now dubbed the “Granston Memo.” The Granston Memo encouraged DOJ attorneys to seek dismissal of such cases where it served one or more important policy objectives. The DOJ has met with almost uniform success in its continued focus on this effort: since the Memo issued, the DOJ has sought dismissal in 36 cases and been unsuccessful only twice.
Continue Reading The Granston Memo in 2019: Recent Cases Highlight the Granston Memo’s Effectiveness as a Tool to Dismiss False Claims Act Cases