Supreme Court Issues "Scienter" Ruling In False Claims Act Cases

RD
Riker Danzig LLP

Contributor

Riker Danzig LLP has served the business community for 140 years, with offices in Morristown and Trenton, New Jersey and in Midtown Manhattan. Riker Danzig is regional counsel, national defense counsel, and deal counsel to clients ranging from Fortune 500 corporations to middle-market businesses.
The Supreme Court of the United States ("SCOTUS") started the month of June with a major decision clarifying the standard for liability under the False Claims Act ("FCA") and effectively...
United States Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.

The Supreme Court of the United States ("SCOTUS") started the month of June with a major decision clarifying the standard for liability under the False Claims Act ("FCA") and effectively killing the objectively reasonable Safeco standard that had been adopted by every Circuit Court that had addressed the issue, including the Seventh Circuit. See United States ex rel. Proctor v. Safeway, Inc., 30 F.4th 649 (7th Cir. 2022) and United States v. SuperValu Inc., 9 F.4th 455 (7th Cir. 2021).

Whistleblowers sued Safeway Inc. and SuperValu Inc. alleging that they offered prescription drugs at discounted prices to customers while charging higher rates to the government in violation of federal law, which requires pharmacies to bill Medicare and Medicaid at the same prices as the general public under the pharmacy's "usual and customary" rate. The pharmacies in each case argued that the Medicare and Medicaid billing requirements were unclear and their conduct was supported by an "objectively reasonable" reading of the law. The Seventh Circuit, adopting the "objectively reasonable" standard from Safeco Insurance Co. of America v. Burr, 551 U.S. 47 (2007), agreed and held that neither pharmacy acted with the requisite scienter because they made an "objectively reasonable" interpretation of an ambiguous policy.

SCOTUS rejected the "objectively reasonable" standard adopted by the Seventh Circuit and applied in Safeway and SuperValu, and unanimously held that the plain text of the FCA's "knowledge" standard required an assessment of a defendant's subjective beliefs about potential wrongdoing as opposed to determining what an objectively reasonable person may have known or believed. Since the Seventh Circuit applied the wrong standard, SCOTUS vacated the judgments in both Safeway and SuperValu. The full opinions are here.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

Supreme Court Issues "Scienter" Ruling In False Claims Act Cases

United States Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration

Contributor

Riker Danzig LLP has served the business community for 140 years, with offices in Morristown and Trenton, New Jersey and in Midtown Manhattan. Riker Danzig is regional counsel, national defense counsel, and deal counsel to clients ranging from Fortune 500 corporations to middle-market businesses.
See More Popular Content From

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More