How much detail must a plaintiff allege to meet the heightened pleading standards that apply in an FCA case? Appellate courts have taken different approaches but given a chance to address a seeming circuit split, the Supreme Court declined to clarify a standard.
On October 17, the Supreme Court denied the petitions for certiorari in Johnson v. Bethany Hospice & Palliative Care LLC (11th Cir.), U.S. ex rel. Owsley v. Fazzi Associates, Inc. (6th Cir.), and Molina Healthcare of Illinois, Inc. v. Prose (7th Cir.). Petitioners in all three cases asked the Court to clarify the level of detail needed in an FCA complaint to satisfy Rule 9(b)’s particularity requirement, which applies in fraud cases like those under the FCA. In doing so, they argued that there was a “longstanding” and “widely acknowledged” circuit split among federal courts on this issue that confuses litigants and leads to inconsistent results.
In Molina, the Seventh Circuit allowed a relator’s complaint to move forward despite its lack of specific details of the alleged false claims, reasoning that fraud could be inferred from the allegations. By contrast, in Johnson and Owsley, the Eleventh and Sixth circuits affirmed dismissals based on relator’s failure to plead with particularity that an actual false claim was submitted to the government.
The parties predictably disagreed on the proper standard in each case. Relators argued that Rule 9(b) does not require...
In the rainforest-covered province of Tshopo in northeastern Congo, fear began with whispers. Late last year, villagers circulated alarming stories that a mysterious illness was causing men’s geni...