Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
In a unanimous opinion in Universal Health Servs. v. United States ex rel. Escobar, 195 L. Ed. 2d 348 (U.S. 2016), the Supreme Court provided a new framework for assessing false certification liability under the False Claims Act (FCA). The FCA creates civil liability for any person who knowingly submits a false claim to the government or knowingly makes a false record or statement to get a false claim paid by the government. It defines a “claim” as a demand for money or property made directly to the federal government or to a contractor, grantee, or other recipient if the money is to be spent on the government's behalf in anticipation of reimbursement by the government.
The false certification theory of liability arises when a government contractor fails to comply with contractual provisions, statutes, or regulations, and the contractor has either expressly or impliedly certified such compliance. Escobar sets forth a new framework for such claims, which can be summed up in a three-part test:
Background
Escobar dealt with the Medicaid program, a joint state-federal program in which health care providers serve indigent or disabled patients and submit claims to the government for reimbursement. In Escobar , the contractor was Arbour Counseling Services (Arbour), a mental health facility in Lawrence, MA, owned and operated by a subsidiary of Universal Health Services (Universal Health). Arbour submitted claims to the government for mental health services provided to a teenaged beneficiary of Massachusetts' Medicaid program, Yarushka Rivera. Medicaid paid the claims. But, as it turned out, many of the those who provided services to Rivera did not have the qualifications and licenses required for payment under the Medicaid guidelines and regulations. For example, Arbour had submitted claims for services it provided to Rivera that indicated that services were provided by individuals who had earned National Provider Identification numbers, which are provided by the federal government upon proof of certain qualifications and licenses. In fact, however, those service providers did not have the required qualifications and licenses.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?