Virginia Qui Tam Law.com
  • ABOUT VAQUITAMLAW.COM
Browsing: / Home / Implied certifications and conditions of payment – SCOTUS’s Escobar decision
Print Email Shortlink

Implied certifications and conditions of payment – SCOTUS’s Escobar decision

By Zachary Kitts on June 30, 2016 in federal False Claims Act, qui tam whistleblowers, SCOTUS qui tam opinions

Virginia Qui Tam Law.com -- The first blog dedicated to the Virginia Fraud Against Taxpayers Act and to Qui Tam Litigation in Virginia

 

 

 

 

 

 

Implied certifications and conditions of payment have their day in Court

Implied Certification, Conditions of Payment, and the federal False Claims Act

On June 16, 2016 the Supreme Court issued its much-anticipated opinion in Universal Health v. Escobar.  The opinion — which was unanimous and was authored by Justice Thomas — deals with important principles in the world of the federal False Claims Act like “implied certification” and “conditions of payment” but before going further I want to point out one thing about the importance of Escobar or, in fact, of any SCOTUS opinion.   

The importance of Escobar? That is very much to be determined…

One thing I think all Americans learned during the Bush v. Gore case in 2000 is that reading and understanding Supreme Court opinions on the fly is an extreme sport not for the weak of heart. But, if it is difficult to read SCOTUS opinions on the fly, it is impossible to discern right away how significant any one particular SCOTUS opinion will be over the long haul.  Sometimes, opinions mark an important change in the legal culture of the United States.  As one example I would refer my readers to the Celotex and Liberty Lobby opinions in 1986 that ushered in the modern era of summary judgment in federal courts.

Other times, opinions that seem important when they are issued turn out to be less than important.  A good example of this is the Desert Palace case from 2003.  In the world of employment law this opinion was interpreted as SCOTUS saying that more employment law plaintiffs would get a jury trial. The reality turned out very differently.  When opinions turn out to be less important than they seem it is generally because the lower courts (who do most of the interpreting on a day to day basis) interpreted the opinion differently, and SCOTUS lacked the time or the interest to follow up and reinforce its initial opinion.

But, for what its worth, here is what we know for sure.  The Escobar opinion certainly means the following two things:  (1) The “implied certification” theory of false claims act liability is valid under some circumstances; and, (2) In order to serve as a predicate to an FCA violation, a contractual, regulatory, or statutory provision does not need to be a “condition of payment.”

The holdings of Escobar — and the things that interested people have said so far

Many folks on the relator’s side (like Senator Grassley (R-IA)) found the opinion to be a great plus for taxpayers.  Leading FCA defense lawyers like Jack Boese and Jesse Witten also found some things to like about the Court’s ruling.

So here is my take:  I think the opinion is a win for relators and for taxpayers.  Some relator-side FCA lawyers didn’t like the fact that SCOTUS didn’t rule that every claim for payment implicitly represents that the billing party is entitled to payment.  By the same token, however, the Court clearly ruled that by submitting claims for payment to the Medicaid program for counseling services by individuals working in certain specific roles — when the services were in fact performed by individuals filling those roles but lacking the qualifications normally associated with those jobs — the defendants submitted a false claim to the United States.

With regard to the “condition of payment” ruling, the Court held that in order to rise to the level of an FCA violation, a defendant must violate a law or regulation that would be material to the government’s decision to pay, regardless of whether that condition is labeled by the government as a condition of payment.  This of course is good because there are a great many important rules that are not specifically labeled as “conditions of payment.”  The Court also said, however, that merely labelling something a “condition of payment” is not enough to make it material under the federal FCA.  The Court provided certain indicators of the government’s view of materiality, such as the routine payment of claims despite regulatory noncompliance, or rigorous government enforcement of a particular regulation and payment denials in instances of noncompliance.

Only time will tell how this opinion will play out…and stay tuned readers, because SCOTUS recently granted two new writs in FCA cases.

K&G Law Group PLLC

 

 

Share this on: Mixx Delicious Digg Facebook Twitter
Escobar SCOTUS opinion
  • Related Stories
  • Most Popular
  • The federal False Claims Act is Important because it reduces corruption in American Society
  • Blog Author Zachary Kitts Announces Second-Largest Settlement in Virginia for 2021
  • K&G Law Group Announces Partial Settlement of Qui Tam Action for $12.7 million (Part I)
  • PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT PART II OF II: WHAT’S PAST IS PROLOGUE
  • PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT AND LEGAL ETHICS: WHAT’S PAST IS PROLOGUE
  • Justice Department Recovers over $3 Billion from False Claims Act Cases in Fiscal Year 2019
  • The Blog of Legal Times on argument in Allison Engine Company v. United States ex rel Thacker
  • Practice Examples: Fairfax County Budget Woes and the Virginia Fraud Against Taxpayers Act
  • Qui Tam Resource Tip: the Project on Government Oversight
  • Virginia Achieves A-minus Rating for Good Government
  • Qui Tam Practice Example: Documentation of a Qui Tam Claim is not to be taken lightly by potential relators
  • LexisNexis and the National Institute for Trial Advocacy (NITA) to publish new practice commentaries on the Federal False Claims Act
← Previous Next →

Search

Monthly Archives

  • October 2022
  • April 2022
  • June 2021
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019

Authors

  • Zachary Kitts

Copyright © 2023 Virginia Qui Tam Law.com.

Virginia Qui Tam Law.com is the first blog dedicated to the Virginia Fraud Against Taxpayers Act and to false claims act litigation in Virginia.