-
1 month ago | 
fcablog.sidley.com | Jaime Jones |Scott Stein |Brenna Jenny |Joseph R. LoCascio
Last week, a Special Master, tasked with making a report and recommendation on summary judgment in the Government’s FCA case against United HealthGroup, Inc. (“United”) in the Central District of California, confirmed that the “avoids” prong of the FCA’s reverse false claims provision has a materiality requirement. U.S. ex rel. Poehling v. UnitedHealth Group, Inc., No. CV 16-08697-FMO-PVCx (C.D. Cal. Mar. 3, 2025).
-
1 month ago | 
lexology.com | Jaime Jones |Scott Stein |Brenna Jenny |Joseph R. LoCascio |Joseph McNally
Last week, a Special Master, tasked with making a report and recommendation on summary judgment in the Government’s FCA case against United HealthGroup, Inc. (“United”) in the Central District of California, confirmed that the “avoids” prong of the FCA’s reverse false claims provision has a materiality requirement. U.S. ex rel. Poehling v. UnitedHealth Group, Inc., No. CV 16-08697-FMO-PVCx (C.D. Cal. Mar. 3, 2025).
-
1 month ago | 
fcablog.sidley.com | Scott Stein |Jaime Jones |Joseph R. LoCascio |Lauren McBride
Last year, we reported on a rare district court decision from Minnesota finding application of the FCA’s civil penalties unconstitutionally excessive. Last week, a judge in the Northern District of Texas determined that even the minimum amount in FCA penalties, as applied, would have violated the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause.
-
1 month ago | 
lexology.com | Scott Stein |Jaime Jones |Joseph R. LoCascio |Lauren McBride
Last year, we reported on a rare district court decision from Minnesota finding application of the FCA’s civil penalties unconstitutionally excessive. Last week, a judge in the Northern District of Texas determined that even the minimum amount in FCA penalties, as applied, would have violated the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause.
-
1 month ago | 
fcablog.sidley.com | Scott Stein |Jaime Jones |Joseph R. LoCascio |Jane Fisher
The U.S. Supreme Court recently issued its opinion in Wisconsin Bell, Inc. v. United States ex rel. Heath, holding that reimbursement requests submitted to the private corporation administering the E-Rate program are FCA “claims,” because the Treasury provided a portion of the pool of funds used to pay the requests. We previously reported on the oral argument before the Court here. The E-Rate program subsidizes internet and other telecommunications services for schools and libraries.
-
2 months ago | 
openlegalblogarchive.org | Jaime Jones |Brenna Jenny |Scott Stein |Joseph R. LoCascio
Earlier this week, the First Circuit Court of Appeals in Regeneron held that to show falsity in an FCA action premised on an Anti-Kickback Statute (“AKS”) violation, the violation must have been the but-for cause of the submitted claim. See United States v. Regeneron Pharma., Inc., No. 23-2086, 2025 WL 520466 (1st Cir. Feb. 18, 2025).
-
2 months ago | 
fcablog.sidley.com | Jaime Jones |Brenna Jenny |Scott Stein |Joseph R. LoCascio
Earlier this week, the First Circuit Court of Appeals in Regeneron held that to show falsity in an FCA action premised on an Anti-Kickback Statute (“AKS”) violation, the violation must have been the but-for cause of the submitted claim. See United States v. Regeneron Pharma., Inc., No. 23-2086, 2025 WL 520466 (1st Cir. Feb. 18, 2025).
-
2 months ago | 
lexology.com | Jaime Jones |Brenna Jenny |Scott Stein |Joseph R. LoCascio
Earlier this week, the First Circuit Court of Appeals in Regeneron held that to show falsity in an FCA action premised on an Anti-Kickback Statute (“AKS”) violation, the violation must have been the but-for cause of the submitted claim. See United States v. Regeneron Pharma., Inc., No. 23-2086, 2025 WL 520466 (1st Cir. Feb. 18, 2025).
-
2 months ago | 
fcablog.sidley.com | Jaime Jones |Brenna Jenny |Scott Stein |Joseph R. LoCascio
In a significant opinion, the First Circuit held yesterday that to establish falsity in an FCA action premised on an Anti-Kickback Statute (AKS) violation, “the government must show that an illicit kickback was the but-for cause of a submitted claim.” That determination hinged on the text of the 2010 AKS amendment, which provides that claims “resulting from” AKS violations are false. With this holding, the First Circuit joins the circuit split on what the “resulting from” language requires.
-
2 months ago | 
lexology.com | Jaime Jones |Brenna Jenny |Scott Stein |Joseph R. LoCascio
In a significant opinion, the First Circuit held yesterday that to establish falsity in an FCA action premised on an Anti-Kickback Statute (AKS) violation, “the government must show that an illicit kickback was the but-for cause of a submitted claim.” That determination hinged on the text of the 2010 AKS amendment, which provides that claims “resulting from” AKS violations are false. With this holding, the First Circuit joins the circuit split on what the “resulting from” language requires.
