Close X
Attorney Spotlight

How did an interest in healthcare policy lead Robert Platt to a career in the law? Find out more>

Search

Close X

Experience

Search our Experience

Experience Spotlight

Envision to Sell to KKR for $9.9 Billion

We represented Envision Healthcare Corporation (NYSE: EVHC) in its definitive agreement to sell to KKR in an all-cash transaction for $9.9 billion, including debt. KKR will pay $46 per Envision share in cash to buy the company, marking a 32 percent premium to the company's volume-weighted average share price from November 1, when Envision announced it was considering its options. The transaction is expected to close the fourth quarter of 2018. Read more


Envision Healthcare

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

Six Things to Know Before Buying a Physician Practice spotlight

Dermatology, ophthalmology, radiology, urology…the list goes on. Yet, in any physician practice management transaction, there are six key considerations that apply and, if not carefully managed, can derail a transaction. Download the 6 Things to Know Before Buying a Physician Practice to keep your physician practice management transactions on track.

Click here to download the guide.

FCA Issues to Watch: The Future of the FCA's Implied Certification Theory of Falsity

Firm Publication

Publications

January 5, 2016

There are a number of key issues that will drive the government's enforcement efforts in the coming year and that will have a significant impact on how healthcare fraud matters are pursued by relators asserting FCA claims and are defended on behalf of healthcare providers. In the coming weeks, we will examine these issues in greater depth and why healthcare providers should keep a close eye on these issues. This week, we examine the future of implied certification as a viable FCA theory of falsity.

In December 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court granted the petition for writ of certiorari in Universal Health Services, Inc. v. Escobar and will consider whether and to what extent the implied certification theory is a viable theory of falsity under the FCA. This case undoubtedly will be one of the most closely watched FCA cases to be argued before the Supreme Court since the 1986 amendments to the FCA.

In the absence of a statutory definition of "falsity," courts have grappled with how to define the FCA's reach in determining what constitutes a false or fraudulent claim. To this end, a number of courts have fashioned distinctions between "factually" false and "legally" false claims and have further subdivided "legally" false claims based on whether those claims are premised on "implied" or "express" certification of compliance with conditions of payment. See, e.g., U.S. ex rel. Conner v. Salina Reg'l Health Ctr., Inc., 543 F.32d 1211, 1217 (10th Cir. 2008).

To complicate things further, there is a division among some courts regarding whether the conditions of payment upon which an implied certification theory of liability must be expressly identified as such. Compare Chesbrough v. VPA, P.C., 655 F.3d 461, 468 (6th Cir. 2011); Mikes v. Straus, 274 F.3d 687, 702 (2d Cir. 2001), with U.S. ex rel. Hutcheson v. Blackstone, 647 F.3d 377, 386-88 (1st Cir. 2011); U.S. ex rel. Triple Canopy, Inc., 775 F.3d 628, 636 (4th Cir. 2015); U.S. ex rel. Davis v. SAIC, 626 F.3d 1257, 1269-70 (D.C. Cir. 2010).

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.