We found a match
Your institution may have access to this item. Find your institution then sign in to continue.
- Title
STEMMING THE FEDERAL TORT FOUNTAIN: WHY FEDERAL COURTS SHOULD MAINTAIN IMPLIED CERTIFICATION LIMITATIONS ON QUI TAM SUITS AGAINST NONCLAIMANT DEFENDANTS.
- Authors
Vann, Dennis Oscar
- Abstract
Qui tam suits in the health-care industry increasingly target pharmaceutical and medical-device manufacturers rather than the medical providers who directly make claims to federal health-insurance programs. These suits commonly argue that the manufacturer induced the provider to falsely certify compliance with federal and state antifraud laws, such as the. Anti-Kickback Statute. This Note shows that suits based on such "implied certification" of adherence to laws should not be permitted under the Federal False Claims Act unless the nonsubmitting defendant is first convicted of providing a kickback. First, this Note analyzes recent amendments to the Anti-Kickback Statute in the Affordable Care Act and explains how these amendments lower two bars to False Claims Act suits in the health-care context that commonly protect nonsubmitting defendants. The Affordable Care Act also indicates that a kickback may be a basis for a false or fraudulent claim, but the statute's language limits this to qui tam suits brought after a criminal conviction. Second, this Note shows that qui tam suits against defendants who make no direct claim for payment to the government interfere with other antifraud initiatives arid that this interference supports constraining a private party's ability to sue on the government's behalf when the claim is only based on inducing a false implied certification of complying with the law.
- Subjects
UNITED States; POPULAR actions; TORTS; FEDERAL courts; HEALTH care industry; DEFENDANTS; FRAUD prevention laws; FALSE claims laws; KICKBACKS -- Law &; legislation; ACTIONS &; defenses (Law); LAW
- Publication
Georgia Law Review, 2013, Vol 47, Issue 3, p999
- ISSN
0016-8300
- Publication type
Article