Two years after the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its landmark Universal Health Services v. Escobar decision, Law360 looks at how courts across the country are interpreting and applying it to False Claims Act (FCA) litigation.
In Escobar, the Supreme Court backed the “implied certification” doctrine as a test to find FCA liability, meaning that organizations can be held liable if they implicitly falsely certify compliance when making reimbursement claims. This has left some major open questions, the article says, including a requirement that any alleged falsity must be “material” to the government’s decision to pay a claim. District and circuit courts around the country have taken differing views on the materiality standard.
The story says the Court may take up a case called Gilead Sciences Inc. v. U.S., which may provide clarity on the issue. Earlier this year, the Court asked the U.S. Solicitor General for input on the case.