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
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 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.