Resources

Client Alerts, News Articles, Blog Posts, & Multimedia

Everything you need to know about BMD and the industry.

Supreme Court Issues Major False Claims Act Decision

Client Alert
June 5, 2023

Supreme Court Rules that Liability under the False Claims Act (FCA) Depends on the BELIEF of Defendant

The Supreme Court unanimously ruled Thursday, June 1, 2023 that liability in FCA suits depends on whether defendants believed their claims were false, not whether they had made an "objectively reasonable" interpretation of law or regulation. The decision rejects the recent attempts to shift the scienter element’s knowledge standard in FCA cases, clarifying instead that an assessment of a defendant's subjective beliefs about potential wrongdoing is required. In the opinion, Justice Thomas writes “…what matters for an FCA case is whether the defendant knew the claim was false. Thus, if respondents correctly interpreted the relevant phrase and believed their claims were false, then they could have known their claims were false.”

At oral arguments, the government asked the Court to preserve the relevance of subjective intent standard. The Government argued that following the Seventh Circuit’s precedent of “objectively reasonable” interpretation would undermine enforcement and incentivize individuals to come up with crafty, post-hoc arguments for why a claim it submitted was not false. The Court agreed, and its ruling allows the government to rely on deliberate ignorance or recklessness of the defendant instead of having to prove actual knowledge.

The FCA was passed under the Lincoln administration and underwent significant strengthening through a congressional amendment in 1986. Today, the FCA is one of the government's strongest anti-fraud statutes. It imposes liability on individuals and businesses that defraud and cause financial loss to the federal government. The FCA also provides the potential for rewards for whistleblowers who report such fraudulent activities. Since its amendment in 1986, the Department of Justice has successfully utilized the Act to secure settlements and judgments amounting to over $70 billion, mainly in healthcare and defense contracting cases.

The FCA plays a substantial role in balancing the power between the government and industry. Along with being used to combat health care fraud, the FCA serves as the government’s primary tool to redress false claims involving a multitude of other government operations and functions. In recent years, healthcare fraud has been the leading source of the Department’s FCA settlements and judgments, as the FCA has played a critical role in combatting the opioid epidemic and the growing issues surrounding the Medicare Advantage program. The number of FCA cases has increased over the past several years, and it is evident that governments on both the state and federal levels are becoming more aggressive in their use of the FCA to obtain recoveries.

FCA claims can be a source of concern and complexity for businesses when they find themselves as the subject of either a federal investigation or state investigation. Whenever there is government money at stake, there is a chance for an FCA claim. Since fraud in the healthcare industry can lead to rising healthcare costs, the government is keen on cracking down on such activity.  The unanimous ruling decidedly addresses with the FCA’s knowledge element, overturning the Seventh Circuit’s use of an "objectively reasonable" interpretation of law or regulation, and instead holding that an FCA case hinges on whether the defendant knew the claim was false.

Should you have any questions concerning the CMS Final Rule, please contact BMD President Matt Heinle at maheinle@bmdllc.com, BMD Vice President Amanda Waesch at alwaesch@bmdllc.com, or Healthcare Partner Bryan Meek at bmeek@bmdllc.com.

COVID-19Vaccine PolicyHealthcareHealth LawAmanda L. Waesch
Client Alert

Enhancing Privacy Protections for Substance Use Disorder Patient Records

February 16, 2024On February 8, 2024, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) finalized updated rules to 42 CFR Part 2 (“Part 2”) for the protection of Substance Use Disorder (“SUD”) patient records. The updated rules reflect the requirement that the Part 2 rules be more closely aligned with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”) privacy, breach notification, and enforcement rules as mandated by the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act of 2020.Client Alert

Columbus, Ohio Ordinance Prohibits Employers from Inquiries into an Applicant’s Salary History

January 30, 2024Effective March 1, 2024, Columbus employers are prohibited from inquiring into an applicant’s salary history. Specifically, the ordinance provides that it is an unlawful discriminatory practice to:Client Alert

The Ohio Chemical Dependency Professionals Board’s Latest Batch of Rules: What Providers Should Know

January 26, 2024The Ohio Chemical Dependency Professionals Board has introduced new rules and amendments, covering various aspects such as CDCA certificate requirements, expanded services for LCDCs and CDCAs, remote supervision, and reciprocity application requirements. Notable changes include revised criteria for obtaining a CDCA certification, expanded services for LCDCs and CDCAs, and updated ethical obligations for licensees and certificate holders, including non-discrimination, confidentiality, and anti-sexual harassment measures.Client Alert

Governor Mike DeWine and The Ohio State University Introduce the SOAR Study on Ohio Mental Illness

January 22, 2024On January 19, Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine and The Ohio State University announced a new research initiative, the State of Ohio Adversity and Resilience (“SOAR”) study, which will investigate all factors influencing Ohio’s mental illness and addiction epidemic.Client Alert

CHANGING TIDES: Summary and Effects of Burnett et. al. v. National Ass’n of Realtors, et. al.

January 17, 2024In April 2019, a class-action Complaint was filed in federal court for the Western District Court for Missouri arguing that the traditional payment agreements employed by many across the United States amounted to conspiracy resulting in the artificial increase in brokerage commissions. Plaintiffs, a class-action group comprised of sellers, argued that they paid excessive brokerage commissions upon the sale of their home as a result of the customary payment structure where Sellers agree to pay the full commission on the sale of their property, with Seller’s agent notating the portion of commission they are willing to pay to a Buyer’s agent at closing on the MLS or other similar system.
Older posts
Newer posts