Aug 112016

Eighth Circuit Holds That A Reasonable Interpretation of an Ambiguous Statute Does Not Give Rise to FCA Liability

Scott D. Stein and Meredith Toole Reiter
,

On August 8, 2016, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a FCA complaint against the University of Minnesota Medical Center (“UMMC”) alleging that UMMC improperly characterized the children’s unit of its hospital as a “children’s hospital”– a term not defined in the relevant statute – in order to avoid a decrease in Medicaid reimbursements under a recent statutory amendment.  The Court held that UMMC’s lobbying efforts with the Minnesota Department of Human Services (“MDHS”) to classify itself as a “children’s hospital” under that amendment, and corresponding claims for Medicaid reimbursement, could not be characterized as “false” under the FCA.

In an effort to decrease government spending, MDHS amended the statute governing its Medicaid payment rates to reduce reimbursements for inpatient hospital services by ten percent, exempting children’s hospitals from the reduction.  This lawsuit was filed by former MDHS employee Paul Allen Olson, who claimed to have drafted that statutory amendment.  Olson alleged that UMMC violated the FCA by “falsely claiming” that it was a “children’s hospital” in order to exempt itself from the amendment’s reach.  Olson argued that the statute unambiguously precluded UMMC’s characterization of its children’s unit as a “children’s hospital.”  But the majority held that the term “children’s hospital” was ambiguous based on the term’s use in other statutes and its historical understanding, and that its children’s unit could reasonably be interpreted as a “children’s hospital.” The panel concluded that “[a] reasonable interpretation of ambiguous statutory language does not give rise to a FCA claim.”

A copy of the Eighth’s Circuit opinion in Olson v. Fairview Health Services of Minnesota, No. 15-1780 (8th Cir. 2016) is available here.

Scott D. Stein

Chicago

sstein@sidley.com

Meredith Toole Reiter

mtoole@sidley.com

You might also like
Fourth Circuit En Banc Vacates Application of Safeco to FCA Cases

The Fourth Circuit, evenly divided while sitting en banc, recently unwound a panel decision finding that Safeco’s “reckless disregard” standard applies to the False Claims Act (“FCA”).

In January 2022, a panel of the Fourth Circuit held, joining every other circuit to have considered the issue, that when allegations of false claims are premised on violations of ambiguous laws or regulations, the defendant’s scienter is properly assessed using the standard for “reckless disregard” established by the Supreme Court in Safeco Insurance Company of America v. Burr, 551 U.S. 47 (2007).  Under Safeco, courts ask whether a defendant’s interpretation of the ambiguous law or regulation at issue was objectively reasonable and whether authoritative guidance might have warned the defendant away from that interpretation.  As discussed here, applying Safeco, the panel affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the case.

Eighth Circuit Holds that AKS Violations Do Not “Taint” All Claims

The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals recently issued a notable decision that offers defendants in FCA cases premised on violations of the Anti-Kickback Statute (“AKS”) significant new defenses relating to causation.  The panel soundly rejected the government’s position that as a result of the 2010 amendments to the AKS, any claim provided in violation of the AKS is tainted, and therefore “false,” under the FCA.  Instead, the Eighth Circuit held that for an AKS violation to render a claim false, the kickback must have been the but-for cause of the submission of the claim.  United States ex rel. Cairns v. D.S. Medical LLC, No. 20-3010, 2022 WL 2930946 (8th Cir. July 26, 2022).  The decision creates a circuit split with the Third Circuit and given the many courts of appeal that have not weighed in on this question, promises to generate renewed debate in district courts across the country as to the appropriate causation standard in FCA cases involving alleged violations of the AKS.

New Pharmacy, Same Result: Seventh Circuit Holds That Objective Reasonableness Dooms “Usual and Customary” Pricing Case

On April 5, 2022, in a 2-1 decision, the Seventh Circuit applied the precedent it set in United States ex. rel. Schutte v. SuperValu Inc., 9 F.4th 455 (7th Cir. 2021) (discussed here) and found once again that a defendant retail pharmacy did not act with “reckless disregard” under the False Claims Act (“FCA”) by interpreting Medicare Part D and Medicaid “usual and customary” price requirements as allowing it to charge those programs its retail cash prices rather than prices offered through discount programs. United States ex rel. Proctor v. Safeway, Inc., No. 20-3425, 2022 WL 1012256 (7th Cir. Apr. 5, 2022).