Supreme Court Declines to Resolve Circuit Split on FCA “Objective Falsity” Issue

23 February 2021 Health Care Law Today Blog
Author(s): Lawrence M. Kraus Michael J. Tuteur Lisa M. Noller Olivia Benjamin (King) Pamela L. Johnston Lori Rubin Garber Michael P. Matthews

On Monday February 22, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to grant certiorari in CareAlternatives v. United States (CareAlternatives), a case on appeal from the Third Circuit that could have assessed the issue of “objective falsity” under the federal False Claims Act (FCA). The Supreme Court’s rejection leaves standing the split among Circuit Courts on whether the government or a whistleblower (Relator) must prove that a claim is objectively false to bring a successful FCA claim. This means that health care providers potentially face differing levels of FCA risk depending on the jurisdiction where an FCA case is brought.

As we have previously discussed, federal courts are split on whether Relators or the government must prove objective falsity. Both CareAlternatives and AseraCare v. U.S. (AseraCare), a case before the Eleventh Circuit, considered whether a physician’s subjective clinical judgment as to medical necessity could be deemed “false” for the purpose of FCA liability, or whether a claim must be supported by facts that could be proven to be objectively false. Both cases involved allegations that physicians’ certifications of medical necessity for hospice services were false and thus sufficient for plaintiffs’ FCA allegations. The Eleventh Circuit in AseraCare adopted the objective falsity standard, holding that to show that a claim was false under the FCA, the Government must show “something more than the mere difference of reasonable opinion[.]” (938 F.3d 1278, 1297 (11th Cir. 2019)). In contrast, in CareAlternatives the Third Circuit rejected the objective falsity standard and found that a certification of medical necessity could be considered false if a jury determined that an expert physician’s review of the same medical records was more persuasive. (952 F.3d 89 (3d Cir. 2020)).

We are not surprised the Supreme Court declined certiorari, in part because the rulings in both cases were very fact specific and were based on an unusual Medicare hospice regulation. We note that a definitive ruling by the Supreme Court on the specific interpretation of the hospice regulation may have been helpful to clarify the “rules of the road” for hospice providers. More broadly, we think it is unlikely that the Supreme Court would have upheld a potentially major limitation on FCA liability had it taken the case based on the facts in CareAlternatives. We have seen in a number of cases that the Court is reluctant to endorse broad limitations that are not in the language of the FCA itself—such as objective falsity. See e.g. Universal Health Servs., Inc. v. United States ex rel. Escobar, 136 S. Ct. 1989 (2016) (rejecting argument that FCA claims could not be based implied certifications of compliance). Therefore, although the Court’s rejection of the appeal may look like a loss for FCA defendants, it may be a better result than a ruling from the Court that could have limited falsity arguments in every Circuit.

Foley is here to help you address the short- and long-term impacts in the wake of regulatory changes. We have the resources to help you navigate these and other important legal considerations related to business operations and industry-specific issues.  Please reach out to the authors, your Foley relationship partner, or to our Health Care Practice Group with any questions.

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