Supreme Court to Weigh in on Fraud Standard under False Claims Act
| Printer friendly version
In a move that may substantially increase healthtech companies’ exposure to monetary damages, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to weigh in on the key standard for fraud lawsuits under the False Claims Act (“FCA”). On January 13, 2023, the Supreme Court granted petitions for writs of certiorari in two now-combined 7th Circuit Court whistleblower fraud lawsuits that address the fraud standard– Schutte v. Supervalu Inc. and Proctor v. Safeway.
The FCA imposes monetary damages on persons and companies that defraud the government by “knowingly” submitting to the government false claims for payment, or “knowingly” making false statements in support of such claims. Lawsuits under the FCA may be filed by the government or by a private party, such as a whistleblower.
In the underlying cases, the 7th Circuit held that a company can shield itself from fraud lawsuits if the company’s lawyers can show that the company’s conduct was consistent with an erroneous but “objectively reasonable” interpretation of the law, regardless of the company’s subjective beliefs. However, some judges and commentators have opined that “subjective bad faith” can establish the necessary intent.
The Supreme Court will now hopefully resolve this issue of whether and when a defendant’s contemporaneous subjective understanding or beliefs about the lawfulness of its conduct are relevant to whether it “knowingly” violated the FCA.
The total annual amount of recovery under the FCA is substantial and may likely to continue to increase, especially if the Supreme Court removes the “objectively reasonable” shield. According to the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) website, the DOJ obtained more than $5.6 billion in settlements and judgments from civil cases involving fraud and false claims against the government in the fiscal year ending Sept. 30, 2021, which was the second largest annual total in history. Numbers for the 2022 fiscal year should be released shortly.
Of the $5.6 billion in recovery in the 2021 fiscal year, over $5 billion relates to matters that involved the health care industry. For example, as recently reported in a prior Knobbe Medical blog post, a medical device developer Advanced Bionics LLC stated that it will pay about $12 million to resolve allegations that it misled federal health care programs.
Michael R. Christensen is a partner in our Orange County office. Mr. Christensen represents clients in the medical device, electronics, media and entertainment, and computer software fields. While he has helped clients protect a variety of technologies, Mr. Christensen focuses on building patent portfolios for medical device clients in the neurovascular, neuromodulation and spine fields.
Mr. Christensen also has extensive experience conducting patent due diligence for leading Venture Capital firms and other investors. He has also performed several IP audits to help companies identify ways to improve their patent portfolio. One of Mr. Christensen’s areas of expertise is developing strategies for expediting patent prosecution both in the United States and abroad. Prior to joining the firm, Mr. Christensen clerked with firms in Seattle, Salt Lake City and Irvine. While pursuing his undergraduate degree in electrical engineering, Mr. Christensen served as a Teaching Assistant in a semiconductor device fabrication lab in addition to taking courses focusing on digital system design and digital communication theory.
Mr. Christensen was a summer associate with the firm in 2007 and he joined the firm as an associate in 2008.
View all posts published by Michael Christensen »
By using this blog, you agree and understand that no information is being provided in the context of any attorney-client relationship. You further agree and understand that nothing herein is intended to be legal advice. This blog is solely informational in nature, and is not intended as, and should not be used as, a substitute for competent legal advice from a retained and licensed attorney in your state. Knobbe Martens LLP makes no representations or warranties as to the accuracy, completeness, timeliness or availability of the information in this blog. Knobbe Martens LLP will not be liable for any injury or damages relating to your use of, or access to, any such information. Knobbe Martens LLP undertakes no obligation to correct or update information on this blog, which may be incorrect or become incorrect or out of date over time. Knobbe Martens LLP reserves the right to alter or delete content or information on the blog at any time. This blog contains links and references to other websites and publications that you may find of interest. Knobbe Martens LLP does not control, promote, endorse or otherwise have any affiliation with any other websites or publications unless those websites or publications expressly state such an affiliation. Knobbe Martens LLP further has no responsibility for, and makes no representations regarding, the content, accuracy or any other aspect of the information in such websites or publications.