Share this e-Alert:

Polsinelli - Health Care Polsinelli - Health Care Polsinelli - Health Care Polsinelli - Health Care Polsinelli - Health Care Polsinelli - Health Care Polsinelli - Health Care


June 2016


Supreme Court Rejects Government's FCA Implied Certification Theory






Modern Healthcare - by the numbers 2015 - No. 1 Polsinelli - Largest healthcare law firms


For more information about this e-Alert, please contact the author:




William D. Ezzell


Email | Bio


Additional FCA Defense contacts:


Brian F. McEvoy


Email | Bio


T. Jeffrey Fitzgerald


Email | Bio


Jonathan N. Rosen


Email | Bio


Additional Compliance contacts:


Brian D. Bewley


Email | Bio


Jennifer L. Evans


Email | Bio


To learn more about our Health Care practice, to contact one of our Health Care attorneys, or for more Health Care Intelligence, click here.


To learn more about our False Claims Act Defense practice, to contact one of our attorneys, or for more False Claims Act Defense Intelligence, click here.


To learn more about our Compliance practice, to contact one of our attorneys, or for more Compliance Intelligence, click here.


Polsinelli - Health Care Polsinelli - Health Care Polsinelli - Health Care Polsinelli - Health Care View Polsinelli documents on JD Supra  


LinkedIn Twitter Facebook Polsinelli Podcast

The Supreme Court of the United States in Universal Health Services, Inc. v. Escobar et al., weighed in on and embraced the implied certification theory of liability within the False Claims Act (FCA).

Under the implied certification theory, a party can be held liable for the mere submission of a claim where the claim results from or is tied to the violation of a law, regulation or even a government contract. The rationale underlying this theory is that, upon submission of a claim seeking reimbursement from federal funds, the submitter is impliedly certifying that the claim does not result from the violation of any applicable law or regulation. Critics of this theory argue that it unduly expands the scope of the FCA by rendering it an enforcement tool for the violation of separately enacted laws and regulations.

It is likely that the Government and qui tam relator's bar will call this decision a "win." But the real impact of the decision is more subtle.

While the Court accepted the theory of implied certification, the Court stated that the theory only applied where two conditions were met: (1) the claim does more than request payment and makes specific representations about the goods or services provided; and (2) the failure to disclose noncompliance with material regulations or contractual provisions makes the representations "misleading half-truths." In the context of Medicare, it is far from clear whether typical Medicare or Medicaid claims meet those two elements.

Notably, the Court held that not every undisclosed violation triggers liability. This begs the question: what is a material misrepresentation that creates a misleading half-truth?

In answering this question, the Court rejected the Government's view, that something is material so long as the defendant knows that the Government would be entitled to refuse payment were it aware of the violation. The Court also rejected another common argument used by the Government, concluding that misrepresentations cannot be deemed material simply because the Government designates a requirement as a condition of payment. Materiality also cannot be established if the Government would have the option to decline payment if it knew of the noncompliance.

Instead, the Court established what it called a "familiar and rigorous" materiality standard:

  • The Government's decision to expressly identify a provision as a condition to payment is relevant but not automatically dispositive.
  • Proof of materiality can include evidence that the defendant knows that violation is something that triggers the Government to refuse payment.
  • If the Government pays a claim in full despite its actual knowledge of violations, this is strong evidence that the requirements are not material.
  • Similarly, when the Government regularly pays a claim despite actual knowledge of non-compliance, but has signaled no change in position, this is strong evidence that the requirement is immaterial.

Importantly, the Court stated that the materiality element must be pled in the complaint with particularity under Rule 9(b). And perhaps equally important, the Court emphasized that the FCA is "not a means of imposing treble damages and other penalties for insignificant regulatory or contractual violations."

Ultimately, this decision is mixed news for federal health care program participants. The nutshell of the case is simple: FCA liability is limited to material noncompliance resulting in misleading half-truths. Application of this newly crafted standard, however, may prove to be difficult and will likely provide the basis for novel and unjustified claims under the FCA.

For More Information

For questions regarding this information, please contact the author, a member of Polsinelli’s Health Care practice, or your Polsinelli attorney.













Atlanta  Boston  Chattanooga  Chicago  Dallas  Denver  Houston  Kansas City  Los Angeles  Nashville  New York
Overland Park  Phoenix  Raleigh  St. Joseph  St. Louis  San Francisco  Washington, D.C.  Wilmington








real challenges. real answers.SM  
Polsinelli is an Am Law 100 firm with more than 800 attorneys in 19 offices, serving corporations, institutions, and entrepreneurs nationally. Ranked in the top five percent of law firms for client service*, the firm has risen more than 50 spots over the past five years in the Am Law 100 annual law firm ranking. Polsinelli attorneys provide practical legal counsel infused with business insight, and focus on health care, financial services, real estate, intellectual property, mid-market corporate, and business litigation. Polsinelli attorneys have depth of experience in 100 service areas and 70 industries. The firm can be found online at Polsinelli PC. In California, Polsinelli LLP.

* 2016 BTI Client Service A-Team Report







Polsinelli provides this material for informational purposes only. The material provided herein is general and is not intended to be legal advice. Polsinelli is very proud of the results we obtain for our clients, but you should know that past results do not guarantee future results; that every case is different and must be judged on its own merits; and that the choice of a lawyer is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements.

Copyright © 2016 Polsinelli PC.

Connect with us on LinkedIn. Connection with us on Twitter. Connect with us on Facebook. Polsinelli Health Care Technology Health Care