In an advisory filing requested by the Supreme Court, the Department of Justice suggested that circuit disagreement over the precision with which qui tam relators must identify fraudulent billing had subsided. DOJ urged the court to decline to reopen the controversy, arguing that the circuit courts have generally agreed to relax prior standards requiring relators to submit specific examples of false billings at the pleading stage. Instead, they have taken up a more flexible position allowing relators to allege facts that support a strong inference that false claims were submitted.
In Nathan v. Takeda Pharmaceuticals, SCOTUS rejected a certiorari petition revolving on this issue, after DOJ argued the split would resolve itself. In its filing, the government argued this had indeed happened. While some differences remain, DOJ suggested they were case-specific, given the facts at issue in individual complaints.
Source:Â
