Close X
Attorney Spotlight

Find out which two countries Cheryl Palmeri gets the most questions about related to International Trade in today's market? Find out more>


Close X


Search our Experience

Experience Spotlight

In June 2016, AmSurg Corp. and Envision Healthcare Holdings, Inc. (Envision) announced they have signed a definitive merger agreement pursuant to which the companies will combine in an all-stock transaction. Upon completion of the merger, which is expected to be tax-free to the shareholders of both organizations, the combined company will be named Envision Healthcare Corporation and co-headquartered in Nashville, Tennessee and Greenwood Village, Colorado. The company's common stock is expected to trade on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol: EVHC. Bass, Berry & Sims served as lead counsel on the transaction, led by Jim Jenkins. Read more.

AmSurg logo

Close X

Thought Leadership

Enter your search terms in the relevant box(es) below to search for specific Thought Leadership.
To see a recent listing of Thought Leadership, click the blue Search button below.

Thought Leadership Spotlight

Inside the FCA blogInside the FCA blog features ongoing updates related to the False Claims Act (FCA), including insight on the latest legal decisions, regulatory developments and FCA settlements. The blog provides timely updates for corporate boards, directors, compliance managers, general counsel and other parties interested in the organizational impact and legal developments stemming from issues potentially giving rise to FCA liability.

Read More >

Eleventh Circuit Refines Public Disclosure Bar Standards


January 20, 2015

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of a relator's qui tam lawsuit under the FCA's public disclosure bar and, in doing so, concluded that the ACA's amendments to the public disclosure bar created grounds for dismissal for failure to state a claim, rather than for lack of jurisdiction. In U.S. ex rel. Osheroff v. Humana, Inc., the relator alleged that various Florida-based clinics and health insurers violated the FCA through the provision of various services to patients as kickbacks designed to induce and influence the patients' healthcare decision-making. Defendants pointed to allegations in state court litigation and news media as publicly disclosing the allegations upon which the relator based his qui tam lawsuit, and the district court agreed.

According to the Eleventh Circuit, dismissal of the relator's lawsuit was appropriate because the lawsuit was based at least "in … part" upon the publicly disclosed information cited by defendants. The relator also did not qualify as an original source of the information in his complaint. Under the pre-ACA original source exception, the relator was not an original source because he offered nothing more than "background information that helps one understand or contextualize [the] public disclosure." And, under the post-ACA original source exception, the relator had not materially added to the public disclosures, which already were sufficient to give rise to an inference of wrongful conduct.

The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee reached a similar conclusion concerning similar allegations made by the same relator in U.S. ex rel. Osheroff v. HealthSpring, Inc., No. 3:10-cv-01015 (M.D. Tenn.).

For more information, visit

In Case You Missed It:

Related Professionals

Related Services


Visiting, or interacting with, this website does not constitute an attorney-client relationship. Although we are always interested in hearing from visitors to our website, we cannot accept representation on a new matter from either existing clients or new clients until we know that we do not have a conflict of interest that would prevent us from doing so. Therefore, please do not send us any information about any new matter that may involve a potential legal representation until we have confirmed that a conflict of interest does not exist and we have expressly agreed in writing to the representation. Until there is such an agreement, we will not be deemed to have given you any advice, any information you send may not be deemed privileged and confidential, and we may be able to represent adverse parties.