The FCA continues to be the federal government's primary civil enforcement tool for investigating allegations that healthcare providers or government contractors defrauded the federal government. In the coming weeks, we will take a closer look at recent legal developments involving the FCA. This week, we examine recent court decisions requiring relators to plead actual claims to satisfy the requirements of Rule 9(b) in order to avoid dismissal.
In the past, the First Circuit has shifted between requiring the identification of a specific false claim and applying a more flexible standard. Compare U.S. ex rel. Karvelas v. Melrose-Wakefield Hosp., 360 F.3d 220, 232 (1st Cir. 2004) (applying strict standard) abrogated on other grounds, Allison Engine Co. v. U.S. ex rel. Sanders, 553 U.S. 662 (2008), with U.S. ex rel. Duxbury v. Ortho Biotech Prods., L.P., 579 F.3d 13, 29 (1st Cir. 2009) (applying flexible standard). Last year, the First Circuit explained its approach as requiring "relators to connect allegations of fraud to particular false claims for payment, rather than a fraudulent scheme in the abstract."
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.