Difference between revisions of "False Claims Act"

1,398 bytes added ,  04:58, 3 November 2021
Line 78: Line 78:


And because the Supreme Court has held that the FCA “is intended to reach all types of fraud, without qualification, that might result in financial loss to the Government” and “reaches beyond ‘claims’ which might be legally enforced, to all fraudulent attempts to cause the Government to pay out sums of money,” the term “false or fraudulent claim” should be construed broadly. ''U.S. ex rel. Drescher v. Highmark, Inc.'', 305 F. Supp. 2d 451, 457 (E.D. Pa. 2004).
And because the Supreme Court has held that the FCA “is intended to reach all types of fraud, without qualification, that might result in financial loss to the Government” and “reaches beyond ‘claims’ which might be legally enforced, to all fraudulent attempts to cause the Government to pay out sums of money,” the term “false or fraudulent claim” should be construed broadly. ''U.S. ex rel. Drescher v. Highmark, Inc.'', 305 F. Supp. 2d 451, 457 (E.D. Pa. 2004).
=='''FCA Anti-Retaliation Law Protects Efforts to Stop a Government Contractor from Defrauding the Government'''==
The '''FCA anti-retaliation law''' protects whistleblowers who try to prevent one or more violations of the FCA, as long as they have an objectively reasonable belief that their employer is violating, or will soon violate, the FCA. Case law has clarified that efforts to stop an FCA violation are protected even if they are not meant to further a qui tam claim.  For example, [https://www.zuckermanlaw.com/false-claims-act-whistleblower-provision-protects-refusal-violate-false-claims-act/ refusing to falsify documentation that will be submitted to Medicare] is protected.
Similarly, a South Carolina district judge held that a relator engaged in protected conduct when she refused her employer’s directive to obtain patient signatures and back-date the signatures, which the relator perceived as an attempt to create fraudulent forms used to secure reimbursement from US health insurance programs.
The second prong (“other efforts to stop FCA violation”) is subject to an “objective reasonableness” standard, which requires only that an employee’s actions be “motivated by an objectively reasonable belief that the employer is violating, or soon will violate, the FCA.” ''United States ex rel. Grant v. United Airlines Inc.'', 912 F.3d 190, 200 (4th Cir. 2018).