Eleventh Circuit Condemns “Shotgun Pleadings” in Florida FCA Suit
The Eleventh Circuit once again put effect to Rule 9(b), insisting on clarity and specificity in False Claims Act pleadings for them to survive. In Vargas v. Lincare, Inc., 24-11080, 2025 WL 1122196 (11th Cir. Apr. 16, 2025), the Eleventh Circuit reiterated the importance of pleading facts “showing that a false claim was actually submitted to the government” instead of merely “sketch[ing] out a theory.” In addition, the panel opinion’s author—the long-serving Judge Tjoflat—offered a concurrence condemning “shotgun pleadings” that “lump[] multiple claims together in one count,” imploring district courts to sua sponte strike such complaints “at the outset.”
Seventh Circuit Clarifies the Bounds of Anti-Kickback Statute Elements
This week, the Seventh Circuit reversed a conviction under the Anti-Kickback Statute (AKS) because the payments at issue—to advertisers—did not reflect an intent “to induce.” United States v. Sorensen, No. 24-1557 (7th Cir. Apr. 14, 2025). The advertisers, after all, wielded no influence over healthcare decisions. And advertising cannot be an AKS-prohibited “referral” in the first place. In reaching these holdings, the Seventh Circuit notably circumscribed the “outer boundaries” of the AKS—violations of which are among the most important drivers of FCA liability.
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).
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…)
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.
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.
Supreme Court Mulls the Scope of FCA Liability for Potential “Claims” Submitted to Private Entities Funded by Private Entities
On November 4, 2024, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in United States ex rel. Heath v. Wisconsin Bell. The question presented is whether reimbursement requests submitted to the private corporation administering the E-rate program are FCA “claims.” Under the statute’s definition of “claim,” the answer hinges on whether the Government “provides” the requested money. All funding for the program, established by Congress, comes from private contributions. Yet where private contributors incur debts owed to the corporation, the United States Treasury collects those debts and transmits the funds to the corporation. The Court’s questioning suggests that the Court will conclude that the Government “provides” at least the money that it disburses to the corporation. The Court, however, appeared reluctant to make any determination as to whether the Government “provides” the other money paid to the corporation—all private contributions paid directly to the private corporation.
DOJ Faces Pushback At First Circuit On Expansive Causation Standard for AKS-Based FCA Claims
On July 22, 2024, the First Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral argument on what the appropriate standard of causation is for AKS-based FCA claims—specifically, whether a “claim” under the FCA “result[s] from” a kickback only if the claim would not have included the items or services but for the kickback. The District of Massachusetts certified this issue for appellate review after adopting the but-for causation standard in United States v. Regeneron Pharma., Inc., 2023 WL 6296393 (D. Mass. Sept. 27, 2023), as we previously reported here. The panel was made up of Judges O. Rogeriee Thompson, William Kayatta, and Lara Montecalvo, and their questioning suggests some optimism for those advocating for the but-for standard.
Ninth Circuit Reboots FCA Suit Based on Radiologist Use of Certain Computer Monitors
A panel of the Ninth Circuit recently issued a 2-1 opinion reversing, in part, a district court’s dismissal of a False Claims Act case premised on a radiology facility’s use of non-medical grade computer monitors for diagnostic readings. In reviving the case, the majority concluded that the relator sufficiently pled a false certification theory of fraud from which the court drew a “strong inference” that the radiology facility’s use of the computer monitors did not meet Medicare’s “reasonable and necessary” requirement because the allegedly technologically inferior monitors the radiologists used undermined the efficacy of their diagnostic readings. The decision is notable because the majority relied on tenuous inferences to establish falsity, as detailed by the dissent, and a watered-down materiality analysis to establish materiality.
Seventh Circuit Rejects Constitutional Challenge to FCA Judgment, Recognizes Circuit Split on Causation Requirement for AKS-Based Claims
In a recent decision, the Seventh Circuit acknowledged—but declined to pick sides in—a circuit split regarding the degree of causation required to establish FCA claims premised on AKS violations. In the same opinion, the Seventh Circuit rejected an Eighth Amendment challenge to the amount of an FCA judgment.