On March 24, 2023, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California dismissed a qui tam lawsuit alleging that defendants’ surgery centers violated the Anti-Kickback Statute by requiring certified registered nurse anesthetists to accept a per diem rate for their services far below the revenue generated from those services and then kicking back the anesthesia profits to physicians who ordered the services. The district court held that the relator’s qui tam lawsuit was barred under the FCA’s Public Disclosure Bar because substantially similar allegations or transactions had been raised in a prior qui tam lawsuit in Florida and in the defendants’ Securities and Exchange Commission disclosures, and because the relator did not allege any material additional information beyond the public disclosures. Of particular interest in the ruling is the question of when disclosures of information in securities filings, prior lawsuits, or the news media may be sufficient to bar the prosecution of qui tam lawsuits. These questions carry particular nuances for publicly traded companies or companies that face serial FCA lawsuits. The firm’s team included Brian Roark, Jim Jenkins, Danielle Sloane, Taylor Sample, Emily Fountain, and Mallie Myers.
U.S. ex rel. Waters v. Envision Healthcare Corporation, No. 2:19-cv-00873, 2023 WL 2636461 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 24, 2023)
U.S. ex rel. Waters v. Envision Healthcare Corporation, No. 2:19-cv-00873, 2023 WL 2636461 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 24, 2023)
On March 24, 2023, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California dismissed a qui tam lawsuit alleging that defendants’ surgery centers violated the Anti-Kickback Statute by requiring certified registered nurse anesthetists to accept a per diem rate for their services far below the revenue generated from those services and then kicking back the anesthesia profits to physicians who ordered the services. The district court held that the relator’s qui tam lawsuit was barred under the FCA’s Public Disclosure Bar because substantially similar allegations or transactions had been raised in a prior qui tam lawsuit in Florida and in the defendants’ Securities and Exchange Commission disclosures, and because the relator did not allege any material additional information beyond the public disclosures. Of particular interest in the ruling is the question of when disclosures of information in securities filings, prior lawsuits, or the news media may be sufficient to bar the prosecution of qui tam lawsuits. These questions carry particular nuances for publicly traded companies or companies that face serial FCA lawsuits. The firm’s team included Brian Roark, Jim Jenkins, Danielle Sloane, Taylor Sample, Emily Fountain, and Mallie Myers.