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 >

Another District Court Endorses Statistical Sampling


May 1, 2015

The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida issued yet another opinion endorsing the use of statistical sampling in FCA cases. In its April 28, 2015 opinion in United States ex rel. Ruckh v. Genoa Healthcare, LLC., the district court held that the relator could use expert testimony of statistical sampling to establish FCA violations concerning claims submitted by defendants' skilled nursing facilities.

The relator alleged that the defendants violated the FCA by falsifying reports summarizing patients’ medical conditions and the treatment provided to those patients. Relator further alleged fraud by the defendants who allegedly allowed unauthorized individuals to submit reports to CMS. After the defendants’ motions to dismiss the complaint were denied, the relator moved to admit expert testimony on statistical sampling due to the "voluminous discovery" and the impossibility of "producing and processing the relevant medical records at the fifty-three medical facilities and some fifty-three off-site storage locations within a reasonable time." DOJ, which did not intervene in the case, filed a statement of interest in support of statistical sampling.

Relying on U.S. ex rel. Martin v. Life Care Centers of America, Inc., and United States v. Robinson, the district court noted that statistical sampling is not only a reliable method, but is warranted in large-scale qui tam cases where "it would be impracticable for the Court to review each claim individually." Accordingly, the Court clarified that there is "no universal ban on expert testimony based on statistical sampling . . . in a qui tam action."

The district court's opinion is noteworthy for two reasons. First, the district court considered the issue of statistical sampling in response to the relator's motion in limine and over the defendants’ argument that the relator was seeking an advisory opinion on the use of statistical sampling. Second, this appears to be the first FCA action in which a district court has endorsed the use of statistical sampling by a relator, whereas previous cases considering the issue were in cases in which DOJ had intervened.

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.