A number of recent FCA decisions have grappled with the question of objective falsity, particularly in the context of FCA claims where the alleged falsity is premised on a lack of medical necessity in connection with the medical services provided. The most recent in this line of cases considered whether a relator alleging nothing more than a difference of medical opinion regarding medical necessity of a particular cardiac procedure failed to plead objective falsity as required to state an FCA claim as a matter of law.
In U.S. ex rel. Polukoff v. St. Mark's Hospital, 2017 WL 237615 (D. Utah Jan. 19, 2017), the relator alleged that a cardiologist and two Utah hospitals fraudulently billed the government for medically unnecessary cardiac procedures involving the surgical closure of a patent foramen ovale (PFO), which is a "a small opening in the wall separating the two upper chambers of the heart" that exists in about 25% of the population and is typically asymptomatic. Adults with a PFO have an increased risk of suffering a stroke; although, according to the district court, "[o]pinions regarding the use of a PFO closure to prevent strokes have varied over the past decade."
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.