Government Contracting Law Report Publishes Salcido Articles on Proving a Defendant Recklessly Interpreted a Statute or Regulation in Violation of the False Claims Act
Government Contracting Law Report has published the two-part article “What Must the Government Prove to Establish That a Defendant Recklessly Interpreted a Statute or Regulation in Violation of the False Claims Act?” written by Akin Gump health partner Robert Salcido.
As the title of the article suggests, Salcido discusses what evidence is necessary to prove that a defendant interpreted a statute or regulation recklessly in violation of the False Claims Act (FCA). He also writes about the circumstances under which a defendant’s “reasonable” interpretation of an ambiguous statute or regulation can provide the defendant with a dispositive defense under the FCA.
Salcido writes, in the first part of the article, about the implications of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Safeco Ins. Co. v. Burr to the FCA and provides a detailed analysis of court decisions applying the Supreme Court’s precedent to determine when a party’s reading of a statutory term is “reckless.” He analyzes the court’s decision in the case and discusses the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit’s application of the Safeco rule.
In the second part of the article, Salcido examines other court applications of the Safeco doctrine in recent FCA cases.