Supreme Court Implied False Certification Case Reargued to First Circuit

27 October 2016 Health Care Law Today Blog
Authors: Lawrence M. Kraus

On Tuesday, October 25, 2016, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit heard argument in United States ex rel. Escobar, et al. v. Universal Health Services, Inc.  This case was sent back to the First Circuit by the United States Supreme Court in Universal Health Servs., Inc. v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1989 (2016) (“Escobar II”).  We submitted an amicus curiae (or “friend of the court”) brief and attended the hearing.  The 90-minute argument focused on the boundaries and application of Escobar II’s “clarified” materiality standard, which will have a significant impact on how False Claims Act (“FCA”) cases are prosecuted and defended in the future.

The core arguments by Plaintiff-Relators and the United States were (1) the Supreme Court did not articulate a new or heightened standard for pleading materiality (although the Court in Escobar II described the standard as “rigorous,” “demanding,” and subject to “strict enforcement” and heightened pleading requirements); and (2) the fact that a government payor, such as Medicare or Medicaid, may pay claims with knowledge of a provider’s legal violations does not mean the payor does not view the violations as “material.”  Such payment, they argued, could be a proper exercise of agency discretion, which should not preclude a future FCA action.  The Government referred to this as a potentially appropriate “business decision” by an agency, and not one that demonstrates there is no materiality, and certainly not at the initial stages of a lawsuit.  To the contrary, Relators and the Government argued, there could be a number of practical or policy reasons a claim could be paid even if the agency understands it is fraudulent.

Defendant Universal responded by focusing on the agency’s payment decision, which it argued was “singular,” such that once a claim for reimbursement is paid, the payor agency can no longer claim an alleged violation was material to, i.e., capable of influencing, the payment decision, as required by Escobar II.  As Universal told the panel, if you ordered a green car and you see I am providing you with a blue one, you cannot accept and pay for the blue car and then later claim an FCA violation.  In addition, Relators alleged that MassHealth not only did not exercise any of the payment remedies available to it but continued paying claims submitted despite the Department of Health’s findings of violations of staff and licensing requirements for Universal’s mental health facilities.  Universal argued the Government cannot knowingly ignore legal noncompliance and rely on private relators to uncover and prosecute FCA violations.  Counsel also focused on what he called “rare” evidence of actual government knowledge in this case.

The panel of judges was very active in its questioning during this lengthy hearing and appeared unsure of how to interpret and apply the Escobar II ruling.  At the conclusion of the hearing, Chief Judge Howard captured what seemed to be the panel’s overall view, promising “we’ll do the best we can with this.”  We will report on the First Circuit’s forthcoming ruling.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services