On September 9, 2019, the Eleventh Circuit held in US v. AseraCare, Inc., No. 16-13004, that a reasonable difference of medical opinion is insufficient to establish falsity under the False Claims Act. AseraCare contrasts with two recent decisions from the Sixth and Tenth Circuits—US v. Paulus, 894 F.3d 267 (6th Cir. 2018), and US ex rel. Polukoff v. St. Mark’s Hospital, 895 F.3d 730 (10th Cir. 2018), which seemed to lighten DOJ’s burden in medical necessity cases. Instead, AseraCare takes the more reasoned position that DOJ cannot establish FCA liability “if the underlying clinical judgment does not reflect an objective falsehood.”
Regulations, Compliance, & Enforcement
Trending Now
Can Government Contractors Use AI? A Legal Guide to AI Compliance and Disclosure Requirements • The Government Contractor Code of Business Ethics and Conduct: Standards and Practices • Data Rights in Government Contracts: A Guide • Cybersecurity Compliance Remains a False Claims Act Risk Despite CMMC Phase II Suspension • Should Compliance Programs Relax When DOJ Enforcement Slows Down?
Eleventh Circuit Holds That Winning the “Battle of the Experts” Won’t Prove Falsity
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.