Feb 212017

Statistical Sampling Update: Fourth Circuit Ruling and Upcoming Sidley Webinar

Scott D. Stein and Brenna E. Jenny
, ,

The extent to which statistical sampling can be used to establish FCA liability remains a hotly disputed topic among federal courts.  In a closely watched case, the Fourth Circuit last week declined to become the first circuit court directly to address the issue.  See United States ex rel. Michaels v. Agape Senior Cmty., Inc., No. 15-2145 (4th Cir. Feb. 14, 2017).

The district court had held that the government could not use sampling to establish FCA liability because liability hinged on highly fact-intensive questions relating to medical necessity and the direct medical record evidence was available for review.  Having granted an interlocutory appeal on that issue, however, the Fourth Circuit ultimately concluded that the appeal had been improvidently granted.  The court observed that district courts have significant latitude to rule on admissibility of evidence.  Furthermore, the district court’s conclusion that statistical sampling can be appropriate in some circumstances, but not in this particular case, underscored that the district court’s ruling did not involve a pure question of law appropriate for interlocutory appeal, and therefore could be better addressed, if at all, following an appeal on the merits of the underlying case.  Importantly, however, the Fourth Circuit’s ruling leaves intact (for now) the district court’s determination that the federal government’s use of statistical sampling to establish liability was not appropriate.  A copy of the Fourth Circuit’s opinion can be found here.

Sidley Austin and the Analysis Group will be presenting a webinar on “Everything You Wanted to Know About the Use of Statistical Sampling to Establish FCA Liability (But Were Afraid to Ask)” (CLE pending).  The event takes place on March 2 from 12:00-1:00 PM ET.  The event will explain and attempt to de-mystify statistical sampling, provide an overview of key FCA cases involving the use of sampling, and offer practice pointers when dealing with attempts to use sampling in FCA cases.

Scott D. Stein

Chicago

sstein@sidley.com

Brenna E. Jenny

Washington, D.C.

bjenny@sidley.com

You might also like
DOJ Reaches Settlement with OraPharma, Inc., Pushing Novel AKS Theory

Earlier this month the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Massachusetts announced a $100,000 FCA settlement resolving novel allegations that a pharmaceutical company violated the Anti-Kickback Statute (“AKS”), and thereby caused the submission of false claims, through incentive compensation payments to its employees for conduct outside the scope of the employee relationship.

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.

Fourth Circuit Underscores the Risk of Commission-Based Compensation Agreements with Independent Contractors

In a recent decision, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals for the second time in two years held that commission-based compensation arrangements with independent contractors cannot be safe harbored and do violate the Anti-Kickback Statute and FCA.  See United States ex rel. Nicholson v. Medcom Carolinas, Inc., No. 21-1290 (4th Cir. July 21, 2022).