In its recently concluded term, the US Supreme Court addressed the government’s authority to dismiss False Claims Act lawsuits brought on its behalf by relators or whistleblowers in which the government has initially declined to intervene. issued its decision in.,

United States, ex rel. Polansky v. Executive Health Resources clarifies the government’s authority to dismiss under such circumstances, providing the government a useful—albeit limited—tool to dispose of meritless FCA suits.

But it is likely that the court’s most significant FCA decision this term was one that it declined to make—resolving the growing circuit split on the application of Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b).

The court’s ruling on the government’s dismissal authority could have a modest effect on purging meritless FCA cases, but a decision articulating Rule 9(b)’s pleading requirements would have more meaningfully curtailed the cadre of relators who make a practice of bringing frivolous cases.

The split can be seen in, for example, United States ex rel. Nargol v. DePuy Orthopaedics, holding that relators must “allege the essential particulars of at least some actual false claims that were submitted,” and United States ex rel. Prather v. Brookdale Senior Living Cmtys., requiring “the...

Read Full Story: https://news.google.com/rss/articles/CBMiY2h0dHBzOi8vbmV3cy5ibG9vbWJlcmdsYXcu...