What does it mean to “knowingly” or “recklessly” violate the law when that law consists of highly complex and ever-changing regulations, which may be open to interpretation? The U.S. Supreme Court recently agreed to review that question in two consolidated cases from the Seventh Circuit: U.S. ex rel. Tracy Schutte, et al. v. SuperValu Inc., et al. and U.S. ex rel. Thomas Proctor v. Safeway, Inc (collectively, “SuperValu”). The central question before the Supreme Court is whether a relator can allege a cognizable claim under the False Claims Act (FCA) if a defendant can prove that it acted in accordance with an objectively reasonable interpretation of regulations.
The concept of intent – known legally as “scienter” – has proven to be difficult in FCA cases involving allegations of “legal falsity.” In such cases, a defendant is typically accused of falsely attesting to compliance with conditions of payment or other requirements under government programs. In these cases, the relator is not alleging the absence of a product or service for which the government has paid. Rather, the relator typically asserts one or more claims based on allegations that the defendant failed to comply with regulatory conditions precedent to payment.
In SuperValu, the pharmacists-turned-whistleblowers allege that the defendants submitted false claims by failing to account for discounts when reporting the companies’ “usual and customary” prices for prescription medication. Pharmacies are required...
Hyderabad: BRS leader Aedla Sudhakar Reddy strongly criticised the statements of HYDRAA commissioner A.V. Ranganath regarding the status of Bathukammakunta. The official had claimed that the place...