For more information on possible theories of liability under the Federal False Claims Act with respect to the healthcare industry, see the following two-part article by Marc Raspani, et al. in Health Lawyers News:
- "Modern False Claims Act Liability: Cradle to Grave Liability? - Part I," December 2006
- "Modern False Claims Act Liability: Cradle to Grave Liability? - Part II," January 2007
[Excerpt]
[U]nbeknownst to many practitioners, providers, and healthcare corporations, the potential theories of liability under the FCA have expanded well beyond what one typically would expect from phrases such as “false or fraudulent claim.” The Supreme Court has construed broadly what constitutes a claim under the Act, noting that “[t]his remedial statute reaches beyond ‘claims’ which might be legally enforced, to all fraudulent attempts to cause the Government to pay out sums of money.” United States v. Neifert-White Co., 390 U.S. 228, 233 (1968). Accordingly, the Supreme Court has found that the FCA was “intended to reach all types of fraud, without qualification, that might result in financial loss to the Government.” Id. at 232; see also Cook County, Ill. v. United States ex rel. Chandler, 538 U.S. 119, 124 (2003). As a result, theories of liability have arisen that encompass every aspect of performance under a government-funded program.
