Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

The False Claims Act After <b><i>Escobar:</i></b> A Three-Part Test

By Stanley A. Twardy, Jr. and Elizabeth A. Latif
October 01, 2016

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:

  • Does the request for payment contain a “specific” representation about the goods or services provided?
  • If yes, a) Was it false? or b) Did the representation omit that the requestor had not complied with a statutory, regulatory or contractual requirement, such that it made the representation a half-truth?
  • Was the misrepresentation material to the government's payment decision?

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.

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws Image

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.

Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin Image

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.

The Article 8 Opt In Image

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.

Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York Image

In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?

The Benefits of Blockchain for e-Discovery and Data Preservation Image

As businesses across various industries increasingly adopt blockchain, it will become a critical source of discoverable electronically stored information. The potential benefits of blockchain for e-discovery and data preservation are substantial, making it an area of growing interest and importance.