★ ANNUAL REVIEW 2027 SPONSORSHIPS NOW OPEN   Learn more →

Log In  |  Become a Member  |  Sponsor  |  ⌕ Search

News/Compliance & Enforcement/A Difference of Opinion Remains: The Third Circuit’s Rejection of an “Objective Falsity” Requirement for FCA Liability Stands After the Supreme Court Denies Certiorari
Free SampleYou’re reading a free sample of the Compliance & Enforcement Brief. Members get every case digest like this, six days a week.See Membership Options
Expert Opinion·Compliance & Enforcement Brief

A Difference of Opinion Remains: The Third Circuit’s Rejection of an “Objective Falsity” Requirement for FCA Liability Stands After the Supreme Court Denies Certiorari

The Supreme Court denied a closely watched petition to review the Third Circuit’s decision in United States ex rel. Druding v. Care Alternatives, a False Claims Act (FCA) case that created a circuit split around whether and when a medical opinion can be “false.” On the heels of this denial, health care providers should take stock of how the Third Circuit’s decision lowers the bar for the government and qui tam relators to survive summary judgment in cases involving clinical decision-making.

Source:

Not ready to join? Take the free Pub K Weekly digest.One email. Free. Top industry articles, the community calendar, and the latest job postings.