Qui Tam Actions

THIS CASEBOOK contains a selection of U. S. Court of Appeals decisions that analyze and discuss issues surrounding qui tam claims. Volume 2 of the casebook covers the Sixth through the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. * * * The FCA imposes civil liability on any person who "knowingly presents, or causes to be presented, a false or fraudulent claim for payment or approval." 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1)(A). FCA civil claims thus require proof of two primary elements: (1) falsity and (2) scienter. The Supreme Court has also interpreted § 3729(a)(1)(A) to require that knowingly false claims be material to the government's payment decision for liability to attach. Univ. Health Servs., Inc. v. U.S. ex rel. Escobar, 136 S. Ct. 1989, 1996 (2016). Although "Congress did not define what makes a claim 'false' or 'fraudulent, '" the Supreme Court has applied the common law meaning of fraud to these terms as they are used in the FCA. Id. at 1999. Under that definition, a claim may be false or fraudulent through either express misrepresentations or "misrepresentations by omission." Id. Unlike the falsity prong, the FCA's scienter requirement is statutorily defined. A party who submits a false claim to the government is on the hook for FCA liability only if it acted knowingly. § 3729(a)(1)(A). The FCA defines knowingly to "mean that a person, with respect to information (i) has actual knowledge of the information; (ii) acts in deliberate ignorance of the truth or falsity of the information; or (iii) acts in reckless disregard of the truth or falsity of the information." § 3729(b)(1)(A). It "require[s] no proof of specific intent to defraud." § 3729(b)(1)(B). The FCA levies significant consequences against parties found liable under the Act and balances the severity of its penalties by carefully circumscribing liability, in part through its scienter requirement. See Escobar, 136 S. Ct. at 1995-96 (observing that FCA civil "liability is essentially punitive in nature" (internal quotation omitted)). United States v. SuperValu Inc., 9 F. 4th 455 (7th Cir. 2021)