You’re having a party and ask your son to get wine. He finds a “buy one get one” offer, keeps the free bottle and tells you he spent $30. During the party, you still run out of wine and say you wish he’d bought two. He says nothing about the bottle sitting in his car. Later, you learn what happened and confront him. He squirms. Then his sister chimes in, “He left work early and sacrificed tips to run this errand for you.” Fair enough. But does it still matter that he hid the free bottle?

Earlier this month, the US Supreme Court considered a similar question, analyzing intent under the False Claims Act. It said yes.

The Schutte Decision

Safeway and SuperValu routinely lowered prescription prices at the pharmacy counter to match a Walmart deep discount program. Federal rules require pharmacies to report their “usual and customary” prices. Walmart included the discounts. Safeway and Supervalu did not, even after payors clarified they should.

The pharmacies relied on Safeco Ins. Co. of America v Burr to say a company doesn’t act willfully if its conduct was objectively reasonable. In litigation, they argued successfully that other pharmacies would have taken the same position.

The Supreme Court was asked to consider whether the later...

Read Full Story: https://news.google.com/rss/articles/CBMiYGh0dHBzOi8vbmV3cy5ibG9vbWJlcmdsYXcu...