Bass, Berry & Sims attorney Matt Curley provided insight on the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Universal Health Services v. Escobar, in which the court ruled that healthcare companies and other federal contractors can face False Claims Act (FCA) liability if they bill the government while out of compliance with regulations and that these regulations need not be explicit conditions of payment to trigger liability. As Matt points out in the article,
It is not surprising that the Supreme Court affirmed the notion that the implied certification theory may give rise to FCA liability. The court, however, missed an opportunity to delineate clear boundaries for that theory. Reassurances that the materiality standard is 'demanding' and not satisfied where noncompliance is 'minor or insubstantial' leaves those boundaries open to much debate — particularly where noncompliance relates to regulations that on their face have nothing to do with payment by the government. It is difficult to view this as anything other than a win for those pushing for a more expansive view of FCA liability.
The full article, "Attys React To High Court's FCA Liability Ruling," was published by Law360 on June 16, 2016, and is available online.