On November 14, Judge Edward Chen in the Northern District of California issued rulings on the pending motions to dismiss in U.S. ex rel. Osinek v. Kaiser Permanente, granting in part and denying in part Kaiser’s motion to dismiss. United States ex rel. Osinek v. Kaiser Permanente, No. 3:13-cv-03891-EMC, Dkt. No. 223 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 25, 2022). These rulings offer insight into the evolving landscape and permissibility of legal falsity claims predicated on sub-regulatory guidelines.

Background

The United States previously intervened in six qui tam complaints alleging that Kaiser violated the False Claims Act (FCA) by submitting inaccurate diagnosis codes for its Medicare Advantage beneficiaries, resulting in higher reimbursements. Specifically, the government had alleged two different theories of liability: (1) the addition of diagnosis codes to medical records via addenda that did not exist at the time of the visit were factually false; and (2) the addition of diagnosis codes that were unrelated to the patient visit via addenda were factually and legally false, even if clinically accurate.
Continue Reading Judge Chen’s Message to Medicare Advantage Providers: ICD Guidelines Aren’t Suggestions

In 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its decision in Universal Health Services, Inc. v. U.S. ex rel. Escobar confirming the viability of the implied false certification theory in False Claims Act (FCA) cases and mandating that claims brought pursuant to that theory satisfy “demanding” materiality and scienter requirements.  As discussed in a prior post, since Escobar, the U.S. Courts of Appeals have wrestled with analyzing and applying the materiality and scienter requirements discussed in the Supreme Court’s opinion, resulting in a number of recent petitions for writ of certiorari filed with the Supreme Court seeking clarification of the Escobar mandates.

In one of its first actions of 2019, the Supreme Court recently denied petitions in two closely-watched FCA cases, U.S. ex rel. Harman v. Trinity Industries, Inc., and Gilead Sciences Inc. v. U.S. ex rel. Campie.

$660 Million Reversal Stands in Harman

The plaintiff-relator in Harman sought review from the Supreme Court after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed a $660 million jury verdict, holding that the relator failed to prove that the defendant’s alleged misrepresentations were material to government’s payment decisions.  The relator in Harman claimed that the defendant produced and sold defective highway guardrails to various states, causing them to submit fraudulent claims for reimbursement to the federal government.  However, evidence was presented that the Federal Highway Administration was aware of the alleged defects but continued to pay for the guardrails despite their non-compliance.  Relying on Escobar, the Fifth Circuit held that relator failed to overcome such “strong evidence” that the requirements at issue were not material.   The Supreme Court’s recent denial of the relator’s petition leaves intact the Fifth Circuit’s judgment and precedential opinion, providing a potential defense to FCA defendants in cases where the government was aware of certain conduct but continued to pay claims.

Continue Reading With Widening Circuit Splits and Mounting Pressure, Will 2019 See a Post-Escobar Decision from the Supreme Court?

This summer, the Northern District of California issued an opinion in an intervened case that expanded the theory of express false certification to a startling degree. Ruling on a motion to dismiss, the court in U.S. ex rel. Dresser v. Qualum Corp. (No. 5:2012-cv-01745, N.D. Cal.) held that the defendants, owners and operators of a sleep clinic and a DME company, could be subject to express false certification liability for submitting CMS-1500 claim forms in which they certified their compliance “with all applicable Medicare and/or Medicaid laws, regulations, and program instructions for payment.” According to the court, this general legal certification was sufficient to support an express false certification claim because “by submitting the CMS-1500, Defendants falsely certified that they had complied with Medicare regulations, even though they were not complying with the personnel qualification requirement, and they made this certification knowingly.”

Continue Reading North District of California Misconstrues Express False Certification Liability