Close X
Attorney Spotlight

How did Mike DeAgro's experience co-founding a nonprofit advocacy organization lead to a career in the legal field? 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 Deeper Dive: Meeting the FCA's Intent Requirement

Firm Publication

Publications

March 23, 2016

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 the requirement that a relator plead and prove that a defendant acted with the requisite level of knowledge to establish an FCA claim and evaluate how courts have evaluated this issue in recent cases.

In U.S. ex rel. Saldivar v. Fresenius Medical Care Holdings, Inc., 2015 WL 7293156 (N.D. Ga. Oct. 30, 2015), the district court granted Fresenius's motion for summary judgment, holding that no reasonable jury could find that Fresenius acted "knowingly." The relator alleged that Fresenius violated the FCA by impermissibly billing Medicare for overfill in medication vials. The district court explained—in a 108-page opinion—that the relator could not prove that Fresenius knew its billing for overfills was impermissible or that it acted with deliberate ignorance or reckless disregard as to whether such billing was permissible. The district court focused on whether Fresenius had actual knowledge that it should not seek Medicare reimbursement for overfills. Key to this analysis were the facts that: (1) Fresenius relied on counsel in determining whether to bill Medicare and the law was silent on this issue during the relevant time period; (2) Fresenius and its counsel believed that many companies had billed for overfills and that the government knowingly reimbursed those companies for years; (3) Fresenius was very serious in its efforts to comply with Medicare rules and regulations; and (4) Fresenius had previously disclosed its overfill billing to the government, but was never warned that its actions were improper.

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.

 

 


In Case You Missed It:

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.