On June 1, the U.S. Supreme Court released its ruling regarding the necessary intent under the False Claims Act (FCA). In consolidated cases Schutte v. SuperValu and Proctor v. Safeway, Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for a unanimous court, explained that the scienter requirement under the FCA is satisfied by a defendant’s subjective beliefs about the accuracy of their claims—not the objective standard of what a reasonable person may have believed.
While this decision is regarded as a win for whistleblowers, the court addressed only one question, creating some ambiguity about FCA lawsuits going forward. Here, the court only defined “knowledge” under the FCA. This holding leaves relators uncertain about what facts, and how many, are necessary to establish that a defendant “knew” its claims were false.
The FCA imposes liability on one who “knowingly” submits a “false” claim to the government. The FCA allows private individuals, or “relators,” to bring qui tam lawsuits on behalf of the United States against those who have submitted false claims.
In the case before the court, petitioners filed suit against a group of companies known as Safeway and SuperValu. Safeway and SuperValu are pharmacies that sell drugs to the general public. The petitioners alleged that Safeway and SuperValu submitted false claims under Medicare and Medicaid for reimbursement of drugs covered by the programs. The Federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid regulate...
Dr. Natalia Krasovkaya, director of the National Center for Public Diplomacy (CND), has recently circulated in online publications accusing her of involvement in recruiting African nationals for t...