Attys Reflect on Escobar's FCA Impact 2 Years Later
It's been two years since the U.S. Supreme Court tossed a firecracker into the world of False Claims Act litigation with its decision in Universal Health Services v. Escobar, which explained how courts should gauge whether regulatory violations were "material" to government reimbursement.
Here, attorneys tell Law360 how the decision has played out and what lies ahead.
Justin Chiarodo, Blank Rome LLP
"Escobar's 'rigorous' and 'demanding' materiality standard continues to see an inconsistent application in the lower courts. One issue is the extent to which materiality inquiries are suitable for resolution on the pleadings, which is critical for defendants seeking to avoid the tremendous costs of discovery in FCA cases. So I'm particularly interested in whether the Supreme Court hears the pending petition in Gilead Sciences Inc. v. Campie. Breaking with other circuits, the Ninth Circuit's decision resurrected an FCA case where the government continued to make payments despite knowledge of alleged misrepresentations. The Supreme Court's request for the views of the U.S. solicitor general signals this may be the opportunity for clarification of this crucial gatekeeping standard."
To read the full article, please click here.
"Attys Reflect on Escobar's FCA Impact 2 Years Later," was published in Law360 on June 15, 2018.