This week, the Second Circuit upheld a dismissal from the Southern District of New York holding that a defendant did not fulfill the False Claims Act (“FCA”) or Anti-Kickback Statute (“AKS”) scienter requirements where the defendant sought and received favorable advisory opinions from the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General (“HHS-OIG”). SeeUnited States ex rel. Stephen Sisselman v. Zocdoc, Inc., No. 24-2807 (2d Cir. Apr. 14, 2025).
https://fcablog.sidley.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2022/08/sidleyLogo-e1643922598198.png00Jaime L.M. Joneshttps://fcablog.sidley.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2022/08/sidleyLogo-e1643922598198.pngJaime L.M. Jones2025-04-17 12:01:262025-04-17 12:01:26Second Circuit Upholds District Court Ruling that FCA and AKS Scienter Is Not Present Where Defendant Previously Received Favorable HHS-OIG Advisory Opinions
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals recently vacated a $28.7 million verdict in a declined FCA qui tam because the district court improperly relied on the relators’ post-trial expert declarations to calculate damages. Writing separately in a concurrence, Judge Duncan also condemned the “constitutional flaws in the FCA’s qui tam device,” citing the logic of United States ex rel. Zafirov (discussed here), and adding to the number of judges voicing concerns over the constitutionality of the FCA’s qui tam provision. (more…)
https://fcablog.sidley.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2022/08/sidleyLogo-e1643922598198.png00Scott D. Steinhttps://fcablog.sidley.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2022/08/sidleyLogo-e1643922598198.pngScott D. Stein2025-04-10 13:34:482025-04-10 13:47:47Fifth Circuit Concurrence Finds FCA’s Qui Tam Device Unconstitutional
Last week, a Special Master, tasked with making a report and recommendation on summary judgment in the Government’s FCA case against United HealthGroup, Inc. (“United”) in the Central District of California, confirmed that the “avoids” prong of the FCA’s reverse false claims provision has a materiality requirement. U.S. ex rel. Poehling v. UnitedHealth Group, Inc., No. CV 16-08697-FMO-PVCx (C.D. Cal. Mar. 3, 2025). That prong imposes liability on a person who knowingly and improperly avoids an obligation to pay the Government. 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1)(G). Although the “avoids” prong does not explicitly refer to materiality, the Special Master held that it incorporates the elements of common law fraud—including materiality. The holding is consistent with broader guidance in recent years from the Supreme Court that the FCA should be interpreted consistent with common law principles—which can result in courts imposing constraints on novel theories of liability.
https://fcablog.sidley.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2022/08/sidleyLogo-e1643922598198.png00Jaime L.M. Joneshttps://fcablog.sidley.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2022/08/sidleyLogo-e1643922598198.pngJaime L.M. Jones2025-03-14 10:21:222025-03-14 10:21:22Court Confirms That Materiality Is a Required Element Under the “Avoids” Prong of Reverse False Claims Theories
Last year, we reported on a rare district court decision from Minnesota finding application of the FCA’s civil penalties unconstitutionally excessive. Last week, a judge in the Northern District of Texas determined that even the minimum amount in FCA penalties, as applied, would have violated the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause. Based on the number of false claims for which the jury found the defendant liable, the minimum penalty mandated by the statute was nearly $300 million—around one hundred times the actual damages. The court instead imposed a reduced penalty of roughly $8 million, about three times the actual single damages, equating to a per-claim civil penalty of approximately $378.18.
https://fcablog.sidley.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2022/08/sidleyLogo-e1643922598198.png00Scott D. Steinhttps://fcablog.sidley.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2022/08/sidleyLogo-e1643922598198.pngScott D. Stein2025-03-06 10:15:592025-03-06 10:15:59Another District Court Finds FCA Civil Penalties Unconstitutionally Excessive
The U.S. Supreme Court recently issued its opinion in Wisconsin Bell, Inc. v. United States ex rel. Heath, holding that reimbursement requests submitted to the private corporation administering the E-Rate program are FCA “claims,” because the Treasury provided a portion of the pool of funds used to pay the requests. We previously reported on the oral argument before the Court here.
https://fcablog.sidley.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2022/08/sidleyLogo-e1643922598198.png00Scott D. Steinhttps://fcablog.sidley.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2022/08/sidleyLogo-e1643922598198.pngScott D. Stein2025-03-05 15:10:582025-03-05 15:11:08Supreme Court Unanimously Holds that Reimbursement Requests to a Private Corporation Are FCA “Claims” Because the Treasury Provided a Portion of the Money Requested
On Friday, February 21, a federal district judge in Maryland issued a nationwide preliminary injunction prohibiting the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and defendant federal agencies from enforcing portions of two presidential executive orders (EOs) targeting diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs at companies that do business with the federal government, including provisions tethering allegedly unlawful DEI programs to potential False Claims Act (FCA) liability. Despite the unusually sweeping breadth of this injunction, the Trump administration retains significant latitude to undertake actions targeting federal contractor DEI programs it believes are unlawful, and companies should carefully consider their response to the injunction.
Earlier this week, the First Circuit Court of Appeals in Regeneron held that to show falsity in an FCA action premised on an Anti-Kickback Statute (“AKS”) violation, the violation must have been the but-for cause of the submitted claim. See United States v. Regeneron Pharma., Inc., No. 23-2086, 2025 WL 520466 (1st Cir. Feb. 18, 2025). In so holding, the First Circuit joined a circuit split on the meaning of the 2010 AKS amendment providing that claims “resulting from” AKS violations are false for purposes of the FCA (as previously discussed here). Like the First Circuit, the Sixth and Eighth Circuits require but-for causation (as previously discussed here and here). The Third Circuit, meanwhile, requires merely a “link” between an alleged kickback and a subsequent claim.
https://fcablog.sidley.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2022/08/sidleyLogo-e1643922598198.png00Jaime L.M. Joneshttps://fcablog.sidley.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2022/08/sidleyLogo-e1643922598198.pngJaime L.M. Jones2025-02-21 10:37:522025-02-21 10:38:54First Circuit Joins Sixth and Eighth Circuits in Requiring But-For Causation for FCA Claims Premised on AKS Violations
In a significant opinion, the First Circuit held yesterday that to establish falsity in an FCA action premised on an Anti-Kickback Statute (AKS) violation, “the government must show that an illicit kickback was the but-for cause of a submitted claim.” That determination hinged on the text of the 2010 AKS amendment, which provides that claims “resulting from” AKS violations are false. With this holding, the First Circuit joins the circuit split on what the “resulting from” language requires. The First, Sixth, and Eighth Circuits have adopted the strict but-for standard, while the Third Circuit opted for a much looser approach. We have previously reported on the split here, here, and here. We will follow up with further analysis of the First Circuit’s opinion.
https://fcablog.sidley.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2022/08/sidleyLogo-e1643922598198.png00Jaime L.M. Joneshttps://fcablog.sidley.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2022/08/sidleyLogo-e1643922598198.pngJaime L.M. Jones2025-02-19 09:19:522025-02-19 09:21:40Joining Circuit Split, First Circuit Adopts But-For Causal Standard for Establishing FCA Falsity Premised on AKS Violations
Categories
Courts
Archives
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it.Ok
Second Circuit Upholds District Court Ruling that FCA and AKS Scienter Is Not Present Where Defendant Previously Received Favorable HHS-OIG Advisory Opinions
This week, the Second Circuit upheld a dismissal from the Southern District of New York holding that a defendant did not fulfill the False Claims Act (“FCA”) or Anti-Kickback Statute (“AKS”) scienter requirements where the defendant sought and received favorable advisory opinions from the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General (“HHS-OIG”). See United States ex rel. Stephen Sisselman v. Zocdoc, Inc., No. 24-2807 (2d Cir. Apr. 14, 2025).
(more…)
Jaime L.M. Jones
Chicago
jaimejones@sidley.com
Brenna E. Jenny
Washington, D.C.
bjenny@sidley.com
Joseph T. McNally
Chicago
jmcnally@sidley.com
Fifth Circuit Concurrence Finds FCA’s Qui Tam Device Unconstitutional
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals recently vacated a $28.7 million verdict in a declined FCA qui tam because the district court improperly relied on the relators’ post-trial expert declarations to calculate damages. Writing separately in a concurrence, Judge Duncan also condemned the “constitutional flaws in the FCA’s qui tam device,” citing the logic of United States ex rel. Zafirov (discussed here), and adding to the number of judges voicing concerns over the constitutionality of the FCA’s qui tam provision. (more…)
Scott D. Stein
Chicago
sstein@sidley.com
Jaime L.M. Jones
Chicago
jaimejones@sidley.com
Brenna E. Jenny
Washington, D.C.
bjenny@sidley.com
Joseph R. LoCascio
Chicago
joseph.locascio@sidley.com
Lauren McBride
Chicago
lmcbride@sidley.com
Court Confirms That Materiality Is a Required Element Under the “Avoids” Prong of Reverse False Claims Theories
Last week, a Special Master, tasked with making a report and recommendation on summary judgment in the Government’s FCA case against United HealthGroup, Inc. (“United”) in the Central District of California, confirmed that the “avoids” prong of the FCA’s reverse false claims provision has a materiality requirement. U.S. ex rel. Poehling v. UnitedHealth Group, Inc., No. CV 16-08697-FMO-PVCx (C.D. Cal. Mar. 3, 2025). That prong imposes liability on a person who knowingly and improperly avoids an obligation to pay the Government. 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1)(G). Although the “avoids” prong does not explicitly refer to materiality, the Special Master held that it incorporates the elements of common law fraud—including materiality. The holding is consistent with broader guidance in recent years from the Supreme Court that the FCA should be interpreted consistent with common law principles—which can result in courts imposing constraints on novel theories of liability.
(more…)
Jaime L.M. Jones
Chicago
jaimejones@sidley.com
Scott D. Stein
Chicago
sstein@sidley.com
Brenna E. Jenny
Washington, D.C.
bjenny@sidley.com
Joseph R. LoCascio
Chicago
joseph.locascio@sidley.com
Joseph T. McNally
Chicago
jmcnally@sidley.com
Another District Court Finds FCA Civil Penalties Unconstitutionally Excessive
Last year, we reported on a rare district court decision from Minnesota finding application of the FCA’s civil penalties unconstitutionally excessive. Last week, a judge in the Northern District of Texas determined that even the minimum amount in FCA penalties, as applied, would have violated the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause. Based on the number of false claims for which the jury found the defendant liable, the minimum penalty mandated by the statute was nearly $300 million—around one hundred times the actual damages. The court instead imposed a reduced penalty of roughly $8 million, about three times the actual single damages, equating to a per-claim civil penalty of approximately $378.18.
(more…)
Scott D. Stein
Chicago
sstein@sidley.com
Jaime L.M. Jones
Chicago
jaimejones@sidley.com
Joseph R. LoCascio
Chicago
joseph.locascio@sidley.com
Lauren McBride
Chicago
lmcbride@sidley.com
Supreme Court Unanimously Holds that Reimbursement Requests to a Private Corporation Are FCA “Claims” Because the Treasury Provided a Portion of the Money Requested
The U.S. Supreme Court recently issued its opinion in Wisconsin Bell, Inc. v. United States ex rel. Heath, holding that reimbursement requests submitted to the private corporation administering the E-Rate program are FCA “claims,” because the Treasury provided a portion of the pool of funds used to pay the requests. We previously reported on the oral argument before the Court here.
(more…)
Scott D. Stein
Chicago
sstein@sidley.com
Jaime L.M. Jones
Chicago
jaimejones@sidley.com
Joseph R. LoCascio
Chicago
joseph.locascio@sidley.com
Jane E. Fisher
Chicago
jane.fisher@sidley.com
Federal Judge Pauses Enforcement of DEI Executive Orders, But False Claims Act Risk Remains
On Friday, February 21, a federal district judge in Maryland issued a nationwide preliminary injunction prohibiting the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and defendant federal agencies from enforcing portions of two presidential executive orders (EOs) targeting diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs at companies that do business with the federal government, including provisions tethering allegedly unlawful DEI programs to potential False Claims Act (FCA) liability. Despite the unusually sweeping breadth of this injunction, the Trump administration retains significant latitude to undertake actions targeting federal contractor DEI programs it believes are unlawful, and companies should carefully consider their response to the injunction.
(more…)
Jaime L.M. Jones
Chicago
jaimejones@sidley.com
Brenna E. Jenny
Washington, D.C.
bjenny@sidley.com
Cody M. Akins
Washington, D.C.
cakins@sidley.com
First Circuit Joins Sixth and Eighth Circuits in Requiring But-For Causation for FCA Claims Premised on AKS Violations
Earlier this week, the First Circuit Court of Appeals in Regeneron held that to show falsity in an FCA action premised on an Anti-Kickback Statute (“AKS”) violation, the violation must have been the but-for cause of the submitted claim. See United States v. Regeneron Pharma., Inc., No. 23-2086, 2025 WL 520466 (1st Cir. Feb. 18, 2025). In so holding, the First Circuit joined a circuit split on the meaning of the 2010 AKS amendment providing that claims “resulting from” AKS violations are false for purposes of the FCA (as previously discussed here). Like the First Circuit, the Sixth and Eighth Circuits require but-for causation (as previously discussed here and here). The Third Circuit, meanwhile, requires merely a “link” between an alleged kickback and a subsequent claim.
(more…)
Jaime L.M. Jones
Chicago
jaimejones@sidley.com
Brenna E. Jenny
Washington, D.C.
bjenny@sidley.com
Scott D. Stein
Chicago
sstein@sidley.com
Joseph R. LoCascio
Chicago
joseph.locascio@sidley.com
Joining Circuit Split, First Circuit Adopts But-For Causal Standard for Establishing FCA Falsity Premised on AKS Violations
In a significant opinion, the First Circuit held yesterday that to establish falsity in an FCA action premised on an Anti-Kickback Statute (AKS) violation, “the government must show that an illicit kickback was the but-for cause of a submitted claim.” That determination hinged on the text of the 2010 AKS amendment, which provides that claims “resulting from” AKS violations are false. With this holding, the First Circuit joins the circuit split on what the “resulting from” language requires. The First, Sixth, and Eighth Circuits have adopted the strict but-for standard, while the Third Circuit opted for a much looser approach. We have previously reported on the split here, here, and here. We will follow up with further analysis of the First Circuit’s opinion.
(more…)
Jaime L.M. Jones
Chicago
jaimejones@sidley.com
Brenna E. Jenny
Washington, D.C.
bjenny@sidley.com
Scott D. Stein
Chicago
sstein@sidley.com
Joseph R. LoCascio
Chicago
joseph.locascio@sidley.com
Categories
Courts
Archives