Late last week, Judge Patti Saris (D. Mass.) issued an opinion on cross-motions for summary judgment filed by a qui tam relator and Massachusetts and a group of defendants that includes South Bay Mental Health Center (“South Bay”) and its private equity fund owner, permitting the vast majority of plaintiffs’ claims to proceed to the jury. The opinion addresses important questions of law as to each of the elements of the FCA related to claims to Medicaid for services allegedly provided in violation of various state regulatory requirements. However, the opinion is most notable for being the first to hold at the dispositive motion stage that a private equity fund and its principals can act with the requisite scienter and cause the submission of false claims, and thus be exposed directly to the treble damages and statutory penalties of the FCA as a result of conduct by a healthcare provider portfolio company. As such, we may expect it to add momentum to DOJ’s stated intent to pursue FCA claims against PE investors in the industry, as we previously reported here.
On March 23, 2020, the Ninth Circuit revived a whistleblower suit in which Jane Winter, a registered nurse, alleged that Defendants Gardens Regional Hospital (“Gardens Regional”), S&W Health Management Services (“S&W Health”), RollinsNelson, and various physicians orchestrated medically unnecessary inpatient admissions resulting in the submission of more than $1.2 million in false claims to Medicare. The District Court held that Winter’s allegations failed to state a claim under the FCA because “subjective medical opinions . . . cannot be proved objectively false.” Winter appealed and the Ninth Circuit reversed, finding that the FCA did not does not require plaintiffs to plead objective falsehoods and that false certification of medical necessity may give rise to FCA liability.
In Escobar, the Supreme Court held that the implied false certification theory of liability is viable under the False Claims Act when “at least two conditions” are satisfied: “[F]irst, the claim does not merely request payment, but also makes specific representations about the goods or services provided; and second, the defendant’s failure to disclose noncompliance with material statutory, regulatory, or contractual requirements makes those representations misleading half-truths.” As we have previously discussed here, courts are split as to whether Escobar’s two-part test is a mandatory baseline to demonstrate an implied false certification or merely one way to plead such a claim, leaving open the door for other variants of implied certification claims not explicitly identified by the Supreme Court. Recently, in United States ex rel. Scott Rose, et al. v. Stephens Institute, No. 17-15111 (9th Cir. Aug. 24, 2018), the Ninth Circuit held that Escobar’s two-part test was mandatory—effectively overruling its pre-Escobar test for establishing implied certification claims outlined in Ebeid ex rel. United States v. Lungwitz, 616 F.3d 993 (9th Cir. 2010). (more…)
On August 18, 2017, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois dismissed the FCA claims of the United States and two states based on allegations that Par Pharmaceuticals orchestrated an unlawful prescription-switching scheme, for the governments’ failure to allege the submission of any actually false claims. (more…)