Photo of John Eason

John Eason

Subscribe to John Eason's Posts

John Eason focuses his practice on representing clients in government enforcement actions, investigations, and related litigation, particularly involving the False Claims Act (FCA). John has represented companies and individuals, particularly in the healthcare industry, in responding to inquiries and investigations by the Department of Justice, U.S. Attorneys’ Offices, Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services, and other federal and state agencies, regarding healthcare and procurement fraud issues.

Contact:Read more about John Eason

In a long-awaited ruling, the Supreme Court held that the Wartime Suspension Limitations Act (WSLA) does not toll the statute of limitations in civil FCA actions, as the WSLA applies only to criminal actions.  After lying dormant for more than 40 years, the WSLA had threatened to upend the FCA’s limitations period and expose defendants to open-ended and extensive liability for otherwise stale FCA claims.

Amended in 2008, the WSLA provides that the statute of limitations applicable to any offense involving fraud against the United States during a time of war or when Congress has enacted a specific authorization for the use of military force is suspended until five years after the termination of hostilities.  In a number of recent cases, relators had begun relying on the WSLA as a means to avoid dismissal of claims brought outside of the FCA’s limitations period.Continue Reading Supreme Court Limits WSLA to Criminal Offenses

On March 31, 2015, in United States v. Robinson, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky issued the latest opinion approving the use of statistical sampling by the government and relators to establish FCA liability.  In Robinson, the government has asserted that an optometrist provided medically unnecessary optometric services to nursing home residents over a five-year period and subsequently billed Medicare for these services.  As support for its medical necessity argument, the government submitted an expert witness opinion based on an examination of a sample of 30 of the 25,779 claims at issue.

In moving for summary judgment, the defendant argued in part that the government should not be permitted to utilize statistical sampling to extrapolate FCA liability and damages to the 25,779 claims at issue.  The government contended that requiring a claim-by-claim review in FCA cases involving this magnitude of claims would enable many defendants to evade prosecution and that other courts have found statistical sampling appropriate in establishing FCA liability in similar cases.Continue Reading Trend of Using Statistical Sampling to Support FCA Liability Continues

From the Bass, Berry & Sims Blog Network
From the Bass, Berry & Sims Blog Network

Thought Leadership by our Attorneys.