In a unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court recently upheld the "implied certification" theory of liability under the False Claims Act, while emphasizing that only material misrepresentations are actionable. In this article, the authors explain the decision and discuss the implications for future False Claims Act cases.
In Universal Health Services v. United States ex rel. Escobar, the Supreme Court today unanimously upheld the "implied certification" theory of liability under the False Claims Act (FCA), while emphasizing that only material misrepresentations are actionable.1 In particular, the Court held that liability can attach if the defendant submits a claim for payment that makes "specific representations about the goods or services provided, but knowingly fails to disclose the defendant's noncompliance with a statutory, regulatory, or contractual requirement," which the defendant "knows is material to the Government's payment decision."
WilmerHale represented the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) and the Advanced Medical Technology Association (AdvaMed) as amici curiae in the case.
Click here to continue reading
Originally published by Pratt's Government Contracting Law Report
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
