Close X
Attorney Spotlight

How did Brianna Powell's work as a law clerk prepare her for practicing law? Read more>

Search

Close X

Experience

Search our Experience

Experience Spotlight

The M&A Advisor Winner 2017The M&A Advisor announced the winners of the 16th Annual M&A Advisor Awards on Monday, November 13 at the 2017 M&A Advisor Awards. Bass, Berry & Sims was named a winner in the two categories related to the following deals:

M&A Deal of the Year (from $1B-$5B) – Acquisition of CLARCOR Inc. by Parker Hannifin Corporation

Corporate/Strategic Deal of the Year (over $1B) – Acquisition of BNC Bancorp by Pinnacle Financial Partners

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

Regulation A+

It seems that lately there has been a noticeable uptick in Regulation A+ activity, including several recent Reg A+ securities offerings where the stock now successfully trades on national exchanges. In light of this activity, we have published a set of FAQs about Regulation A+ securities offerings to help companies better understand this "mini-IPO" offering process, as well as pros and cons compared to a traditional underwritten IPO.

Read now

Middle District of Tennessee Clarifies Pleading Standards for the Presentment of False Claims

Publications

November 25, 2015

Earlier this month, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee dismissed a relator's qui tam lawsuit, finding that the relator had failed to adequately allege the presentment of false claims to the government. In U.S. ex rel. Prather v. Brookdale Senior Living, Inc., the relator alleged that Brookdale submitted false claims for home health services that did not meet the technical requirements for billing under Medicare rules and regulations. Defendants argued that the allegations failed to include sufficient detail regarding the actual submission of requests for anticipated payment (RAP) claims and that the relator failed to plead the requisite legal falsity of both RAP and final episode payment claims.

The district court dismissed the second amended complaint with prejudice, finding that the relator did not meet the "strict requirement" that she allege the submission of actual false claims to a federal healthcare program. The district court found that despite including information regarding treatment dates, the entity providing the treatment, and the Brookdale community at which the patient resided for four exemplar patients and several hundred patients in attached exhibits, the complaint failed to allege the presentment of any false claim. The district court held that it was "insufficient for Prather to point to a patient that received home health care services and allege that a RAP was, or must have been, submitted, by some corporate authorization, for some amount, at some date around the date of treatment, and that some payment was likely received in return from the government, based just on the generally delineated circumstances of the patient's receipt of home health services from a defendant entity." The information provided was "too general and too attenuated from the Medicare Billing process to satisfy the requirements of the law concerning the presentment of specific false claims."

Inside the FCA blog

 

To continue reading the content in this article on the firm's Inside the FCA blog, please click here to view the post.

Bass, Berry & Sims' Inside the FCA blog features news, commentary and thought leadership covering FCA, healthcare fraud and procurement fraud.

 

 


Related Professionals

Related Services

Notice

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.