This is the second post of a two-part discussion of FCA pleading standards and discusses the pleading requirements for connecting a fraudulent scheme to the submission of false claims.  Read our previous post on the requirements for pleading the details of a fraudulent scheme.

Pleading Submission of False Claims

Most courts require FCA plaintiffs to round out their FCA pleadings with allegations that false claims were submitted to the government as a result of the alleged fraud scheme.  Some courts require plaintiffs to identify specific representative examples, while others permit the pleading of “reliable indicia” leading to a “strong inference” that claims were actually submitted.

Pleading Actual Claims  

The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts recently laid out the level of detail generally expected for pleading the submission of actual false claims.  In U.S. ex rel. Wollman v. General Hospital Corporation, it held the relator made insufficient allegations of actual claims submitted as part of a fraudulent billing scheme involving overlapping surgeries when the complaint included “no dates, identification numbers, amounts, services, individuals involved, or length of time” for any of the surgeries at issue.

Continue Reading Recent Developments in FCA Pleading Standards – Part Two

The False Claims Act (FCA) continues to be the federal government’s primary civil enforcement tool for imposing liability on healthcare providers who defraud federal healthcare programs.  A significant portion of FCA litigation is initiated through the filing of sealed qui tam complaints by relators on behalf of the United States.  When these complaints are unsealed, whether the government intervenes or not, their first hurdle is often surviving a motion to dismiss.  Because actions under the FCA allege fraud against the government, courts require allegations sufficient to satisfy Rule 9(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Determining whether an FCA complaint satisfies Rule 9(b) turns on two related questions: Does it contain an adequate description of the alleged fraud scheme? If so, does it connect that scheme to false claims submitted to the government?

This post discusses the requirements for adequately pleading a fraudulent scheme.  We have also written a follow-up post discussing the requirements for connecting that scheme to the submission of actual false claims.  To follow our discussion of recent developments in FCA pleading standards, subscribe to this blog.

Pleading Details of a Fraudulent Scheme

Generally speaking, courts agree that in order to pass muster, FCA complaints must include all of the details one would expect to find in the first paragraph of a newspaper article—that is, the “who, what, when, where and how” of the alleged fraud.  While meeting this standard may seem simple enough, courts continue to grapple with the nuances and difficulties associated with pleading fraud with the requisite specificity.

Continue Reading Recent Developments in FCA Pleading Standards – Part One

Government Settles with Several Entities, Individuals

Last week, Vanguard Healthcare and related entities reached a settlement with the Department of Justice (DOJ) for the stated amount of more than $18 million to settle allegations related to billing worthless services to Medicare and Medicaid programs from 2010 to 2015. The settlement also includes a resolution of claims against two individuals—Vanguard’s majority owner and CEO and its and former director of operations—consistent with the DOJ’s ongoing policy of focusing on individual liability (as discussed here). The CEO and director of operations will pay $212,500 and $37,500, respectively, of the total settlement sum. In its press release, the DOJ called this the “largest worthless services resolution in Tennessee history.”

The United States and the state of Tennessee sued the nursing home chain in September 2016, after the Vanguard entities had filed Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings.  In the complaint and in claims filed in the bankruptcy cases, the government alleged damages in excess of $56 million.  The primary allegations were that Vanguard and its subsidiaries billed Medicare and TennCare for “non-existent, grossly substandard, and/or worthless nursing home services[.]” The alleged inadequate care included staffing and supply shortages, a lack of infection control, failure to administer medications as prescribed, failure to care for wounds as ordered, lack of adequate pain management, and overuse of psychotropic medications and physical restraints, among other quality of care allegations. The government also alleged that Vanguard submitted Pre-Admission Evaluations and Preadmission Screening and Resident Reviews (certifications that TennCare uses to determine a patient’s Medicaid eligibility and required level of care) with forged physician or nurse signatures.

Continue Reading Tennessee Nursing Home Chain Reaches “Largest Worthless Services Resolution in Tennessee’s History”

Greenway Health LLC, a Tampa-based developer of electronic health records (EHR) software, recently agreed to pay $57.25 million to resolve False Claims Act (FCA) allegations that it overstated the capabilities of and failed to correct known errors with its EHR software.  In a complaint filed in the United States District Court for the District of Vermont, the United States alleged that Greenway caused its users to submit false claims to the government by, among other things, misrepresenting the capabilities of its EHR product “Prime Suite” and providing unlawful remuneration to users to induce them to recommend the product.

EHR Companies Must Be HHS Certified

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 established the Medicare and Medicaid EHR Incentive Program to encourage healthcare providers to adopt EHR technology and demonstrate its “meaningful use.”  To obtain certification for their product, EHR companies are required to demonstrate that their product satisfies all applicable U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) certification criteria.  This requires that developers do the following two things:

  1. Pass testing performed by an independent, accredited testing laboratory authorized by HHS.
  2. Obtain and maintain certification by an independent, accredited certification body authorized by HHS.

Continue Reading Electronic Health Records Company Pays High Price for Software Shortcomings

On January 14, 2019, Intermountain Healthcare, Inc. and Intermountain Medical Center (Intermountain) filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court.  Intermountain’s petition comes after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reversed a district court’s grant of Intermountain’s motion to dismiss.  In relevant part, the district court concluded that the relator failed to identify any company employees with knowledge of the alleged fraud or when any employees knew about the fraud.  The Tenth Circuit reversed, holding that the relator need not allege those facts because they were in the defendant’s exclusive control and that allegations of knowledge need only be pleaded generally.

Intermountain’s petition raises two questions:

  • Can a plaintiff avoid Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b)’s pleading requirements by asserting that only the defendant possesses the information needed to meet those requirements?
  • Do the False Claims Act’s (FCA) qui tam provisions violate the Appointments Clause of Article II of the U.S. Constitution?

Both questions have previously appeared in petitions for writ of certiorari, but neither question has been addressed by the Supreme Court.  See, e.g., Petition for Writ of Certiorari, U.S. ex rel. Joshi v. St. Luke’s Hospital, Inc. (denied Oct. 2, 2006); Petition for Writ of Certiorari, GPM Gas Corp. et al. v. U.S. ex rel. Grynberg (denied Apr. 22, 2002).

Continue Reading Supreme Court Asked to Review Pleading Standard and Constitutionality of FCA

On December 26, 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued an opinion in United States ex rel. Grant v. United Airlines affirming dismissal of the relator’s False Claims Act (FCA) allegations on the grounds that the complaint failed to plead presentment of a false claim with sufficient particularity under Rule 9(b). In the same opinion, however, the court revived the relator’s retaliation claim on the grounds that the relator satisfied the lower standard of Rule 8(a) applicable to retaliation claims, which are not claims of fraud.

Presentment Must Follow from Conduct Alleged in Complaint

The court affirmed dismissal of the relator’s substantive FCA claims because it held that the relator failed to adequately plead presentment under Rule 9(b) in either of the two ways that the Fourth Circuit has recognized as acceptable:

  1. By alleging with particularity that specific false claims actually were presented to the government for payment, including by describing the time, place, and contents of the false representation; the person making the false representation; and what was obtained by making this representation
  2. By alleging a pattern of conduct that would “necessarily have led to a false claim being submitted”

The court focused its analysis on whether the complaint was adequately pleaded under the latter of those two options. The relator was a former maintenance technician of United Airlines who was a second-tier subcontractor on a government contract for the repair and maintenance of military aircraft. His complaint alleged that United Airlines was specifically subcontracted to repair, overhaul and inspect certain airplane engines and was required to do its work in compliance with certain regulations. The complaint alleged that United Airlines violated the FCA by failing to comply with the required regulations in completing work on these airplane engines. Continue Reading Fourth Circuit Weighs in on Standards for Pleading Presentment and Retaliation

Download Annual Healthcare Fraud & Abuse ReviewBass, Berry & Sims is pleased to announce the release of its seventh annual Healthcare Fraud and Abuse Review. The Review, compiled by the firm’s Healthcare Fraud Task Force, is an in-depth and comprehensive review of enforcement settlements, court decisions and developments affecting the healthcare industry.

The Review is intended to assist healthcare providers in developing a greater understanding of the civil and criminal enforcement risks they face during a time of great uncertainty for the healthcare industry.  Without question, understanding the key developments during the prior year is an important step in implementing necessary safeguards designed to minimize enforcement risks for healthcare providers.

Our Healthcare Fraud and Abuse Review covers:

  • Healthcare fraud issues to watch in 2019
  • Noteworthy FCA settlements from 2018
  • Comprehensive coverage of significant FCA decisions
  • Analysis of key AKS and Stark settlements and litigation
  • Discussion of pharmaceutical and medical device risk areas

Click to download Healthcare Fraud and Abuse Review

In December 2018, the Department of Justice (DOJ) updated its Justice Manual to add Title 1-20.000 et seq., Limitation on Use of Guidance Documents in Litigation. This addition formalizes guidance provided in two previous internal DOJ memoranda—the Sessions Memo and the Brand Memo—each discussing limiting the use of guidance documents and advisory opinions in both criminal and civil enforcement actions.

The Sessions and Brand Memos

The Sessions Memo, authored by then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions in November 2017, prohibited the DOJ from promulgating guidance documents “that purport to create rights or obligations binding on persons or entities outside the Executive Branch[.]” It also prohibited the DOJ from creating binding standards that could then be used to determine a person or entity’s compliance with applicable federal statutes or regulations. Importantly, the memo noted that such guidance documents were not produced through a notice-and-comment rulemaking process and were not promulgated by the agency charged with the constitutional authority to do so.

Continue Reading DOJ Formalizes Previous Directives Regarding Limiting Use of Guidance Documents to Prove Violations of Law

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?

On December 11, 2018, the United States announced that it has elected to intervene in a False Claims Act (FCA) lawsuit filed against Sutter Health and its affiliated entity Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAMF) alleging that the defendants defrauded the Medicare Advantage program by submitting false patient information to the government. The whistleblower, a former employee of PAMF, alleges that Sutter “has taken and continues to take hundreds of millions of dollars in inflated capitation payments” by submitting “risk adjustment data Sutter knows to be inaccurate, incomplete or false.”

Medicare Advantage Plans

Medicare Advantage, formally known as Medicare Part C, allows private insurance companies, acting as “Medicare Advantage Organizations (MAOs),” to offer insurance plans and administer Medicare benefits. MAOs contract with healthcare providers such as Sutter to provide Medicare services to the plans’ enrollees. Instead of receiving reimbursement on a traditional fee-for-service basis, MAOs provide benefits under a capitated payment system, whereby government reimbursement is based on each individual beneficiary’s risk adjustment data.

Continue Reading DOJ Intervenes in Another Medicare Advantage Risk Adjustment FCA Suit