On June 1, 2023, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favor of whistleblower plaintiffs (referred to as "relators") in consolidated False Claims Act ("FCA") cases in a decision that clarified the application of the FCA's knowledge requirement. In United States ex rel. Schutte v. SuperValu Inc., the Court held that the FCA reaches defendants who knew that the claims they submitted were fraudulent, even if they subsequently offered an "objectively reasonable" interpretation of an ambiguous legal or contractual requirement material to the government's payment decision. McGuireWoods previously reported that the Supreme Court's resolution of the case and the underlying circuit split was set to be significant.
In a concise ruling (with no concurring or dissenting opinions), Justice Thomas's opinion interpreted the FCA's knowledge requirement in a manner that is more favorable to relators and prosecutors, while foreclosing a line of defense for FCA defendants that several courts had previously allowed.
The FCA provides for liability for a defendant that "knowingly presents, or causes to be presented, a false or fraudulent claim for payment or approval."1 "Knowingly" is defined in the statute as acting with (1) "actual knowledge" of the falsity, (2) "deliberate ignorance of the truth," or (3) "reckless disregard of the truth."2 In the consolidated cases before the Court, the Seventh Circuit held that the defendants, which own and operate retail pharmacies, had not "knowingly"...
Fake documents allege mass medical screenings and child databases near frontlines, provoking fear among parents and local officials and communities. Authorities urge immediate verification through...