More than two years after the Northern District of Alabama granted summary judgment in a False Claims Act (FCA) case in favor of AseraCare Inc., holding that “contradiction based on clinical judgment or opinion alone cannot constitute falsity under the FCA as a matter of law[,]” the Eleventh Circuit has affirmed in part and vacated in part the district court decision. The case will now be remanded to the district court for further proceedings. Critically, the Eleventh Circuit concurred with the district court’s ultimate determination that “a clinical judgment of terminal illness warranting hospice benefits under Medicare cannot be deemed false, for purposes of the False Claims Act, when there is only a reasonable disagreement between medical experts as to the accuracy of that conclusion, with no other evidence to prove the falsity of the assessment.” In other words, a mere difference of opinion does not constitute falsity under the FCA.
Regulations, Compliance, & Enforcement
Trending Now
Proposed DFARS Rule Could Require Disclosures and Mitigation Related to Foreign Ownership, Control, and Influence (FOCI) on Certain Unclassified Contracts • OMB Plans to Make IT Contract Data Collection Public, Per Federal CIO • The DOJ Wants Strong FCA Whistleblower Lawsuits From Data Miners • US Investors Earn to Ukrainian Defense Startups—But Export Laws Slow Cooperation • Virginia Expands Restrictions on Employee Non-Compete Agreements
Eleventh Circuit Confirms: Mere Difference of Opinion Between Physicians Does Not Establish Falsity Under the False Claims Act
Olivier Le Moal | Shutterstock
Track False Claims Act cases, audit trends, and compliance best practices with our Compliance & Enforcement newsletter, delivering up-to-the-minute intelligence Monday–Saturday — Subscribe here.