Robert Salcido Analysis of SCOTUS Escobar Decision and Impact on False Claims Act Published by AHLA Weekly
“The Supreme Court Issues Significant Ruling Substantially Narrowing Application of False Claims Act,” an article by Akin Gump health care and life sciences partner Robert Salcido, has been published by AHLA Weekly, a publication of the American Health Lawyers Association.
The article looks at the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Universal Health Services v. United States ex rel. Escobar, which, Salcido writes, “examined the circumstances under which an ‘implied false certification’ can trigger liability under the False Claims Act (FCA) and clarified how the FCA materiality requirement should be enforced.”
Salcido traces the legal history relevant to the FCA that led up to Escobar, notes the government reaction to legal trends that were resulting in a “narrower construction” of the FCA and discusses in depth the Supreme Court’s ruling against the backdrop of the facts of the matter in the areas of false implied certification and materiality.
He writes, “The Supreme Court’s decision will have a significant impact on FCA jurisprudence. Although some have deemed the Supreme Court’s ruling a victory for the government because the Court recognized the implied false certification theory, that viewpoint appears incomplete and mistaken. While recognizing the potential application of an implied false certification theory, the Court’s application of the theory was extraordinarily narrow…” and states that the Court’s decision appears much more favorable to those operating in the health care industry.
To read the full article, please click here.