Second Circuit Clarifies Limitations on Implied False Certification Theory under the False Claims Act in Healthcare Fraud Cases

Second Circuit Clarifies Limitations on Implied False Certification Theory under the False Claims Act in Healthcare Fraud Cases

Introduction

In Patricia S. Mikes, U.S. Go v. t. Ex Rel., Patricia S. Mikes, Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross-Appellee, 274 F.3d 687 (2001), the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit addressed significant issues under the False Claims Act (FCA) pertaining to healthcare fraud. Dr. Patricia S. Mikes, a former employee of Pulmonary and Critical Care Associates, filed a qui tam action alleging that her employers submitted false Medicare reimbursement claims for spirometry tests that did not adhere to established medical standards. The key issues revolved around whether the defendants' actions constituted "legally false" or "implied false" certifications under the FCA and whether the submission of such claims amounted to fraudulent activity. This case presented a first impression in the Second Circuit regarding the applicability of medical standards of care within the FCA framework.

Summary of the Judgment

The Second Circuit affirmed the district court's summary judgment in favor of the defendants, Dr. Marc J. Straus, Dr. Jeffrey M. Ambinder, and Dr. Eliot L. Friedman. The court held that the defendants did not violate the FCA by submitting Medicare claims for spirometry tests, as the plaintiffs failed to establish that the claims were legally or impliedly false. Specifically, the court determined that the defendants did not expressly or implicitly certify compliance with the American Thoracic Society (ATS) guidelines for spirometry, which were at the heart of the plaintiff's allegations. Additionally, the court found no evidence that the defendants knowingly submitted claims for worthless services, thereby negating the necessary scienter required for FCA liability. Consequently, the award of attorneys' fees to the defendants was also upheld.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively referenced several precedents to frame its analysis. Notably, United States ex rel. Siewick v. Jamieson Sci. Eng'g, Inc., 214 F.3d 1372 (D.C. Cir. 2000) was pivotal in establishing that a false certification under the FCA requires that compliance with a statute or regulation be a condition precedent to payment. Additionally, the court considered Lee v. SmithKline Beecham, Inc., 245 F.3d 1048 (9th Cir. 2001), which distinguished between the false certification theory and the separate "worthless services" claim, emphasizing the distinct nature of each under the FCA. The decision also drew on Hopper v. Anton, 91 F.3d 1261 (9th Cir. 1996), reinforcing that material compliance with regulatory standards is essential for FCA liability.

Legal Reasoning

The court's legal reasoning centered on interpreting the scope of "false certification" under the FCA. It differentiated between "express" and "implied" false certifications, ultimately ruling that implied certifications are only applicable when compliance with a specific statute or regulation is explicitly required for payment. In this case, § 1395y(a)(1)(A) of the Medicare statute, which mandates that services be "reasonable and necessary," was deemed an express condition linking payment to compliance. However, § 1320c-5(a), which sets out qualitative standards for healthcare services, was not considered a prerequisite for reimbursement; instead, it governs ongoing eligibility within the Medicare program. Consequently, the defendants' submission of Medicare claims did not implicitly certify adherence to § 1320c-5(a), as it did with § 1395y(a)(1)(A).

Furthermore, the court analyzed the "worthless services" claim, recognizing it as distinct from false certification. However, the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the defendants knowingly submitted claims for services devoid of medical value, a requisite for establishing scienter under the FCA. The defendants provided substantial evidence of their good faith belief in the medical value of the spirometry tests, negating the plaintiffs' allegations of intentional fraud.

Impact

This judgment has significant implications for future FCA cases, particularly within the healthcare sector. By clarifying the limitations of implied false certification, the Second Circuit set a precedent that restricts the scope of FCA liability to situations where compliance with regulatory standards is explicitly tied to payment. This delineation ensures that the FCA is not overextended to encompass violations irrelevant to governmental reimbursement decisions. Additionally, by distinguishing between false certifications and worthless services claims, the court provided a clearer framework for plaintiffs and defendants to assess the viability of their claims and defenses under the FCA.

Complex Concepts Simplified

False Claims Act (FCA): A federal law that imposes liability on individuals and companies who defraud governmental programs. It allows private individuals to file lawsuits on behalf of the government (qui tam action) and share in any recovered damages.

Qui Tam Action: A provision under the FCA that enables a private individual (relator) to sue on behalf of the government and receive a portion of any recovered damages if the case is successful.

Legally False Certification: An express false statement made by a defendant about compliance with a specific statute or regulation that is a condition for receiving payment from the government.

Implied False Certification: An assumption that by submitting a claim, a defendant is implicitly certifying compliance with related statutes or regulations, even if not explicitly stated.

Scienter: A legal term referring to the intent or knowledge of wrongdoing. Under the FCA, it requires that the defendant knowingly submitted false claims.

Worthless Services Claim: A type of FCA claim where the services provided lack any medical value, making any associated reimbursement claim inherently fraudulent.

Conclusion

The Second Circuit's decision in Patricia S. Mikes v. Straus et al. underscores the necessity for plaintiffs to clearly demonstrate that fraudulent claims under the FCA are both expressed or impliedly certifications directly tied to payment conditions and that there is sufficient evidence of the defendant's knowledge of fraud. By carefully delineating the boundaries of "false certification," especially in the context of complex medical services, the court ensures that the FCA remains a focused tool against genuine governmental fraud without encroaching unnecessarily into areas governed by specialized regulatory standards. This judgment reinforces the importance of understanding the specific conditions that trigger FCA liability, thereby guiding future litigants in structuring their claims and defenses within the appropriate legal framework.

Case Details

Year: 2001
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Judge(s)

Richard J. Cardamone

Attorney(S)

Harold R. Burke, Greenwich, CT (Holland Kaufmann Bartels, LLC, Greenwich, Connecticut, of counsel), for Plaintiff-Appellant Patricia S. Mikes, M.D. Barry B. Cepelewicz, White Plains, NY (David J. Meiselman, Arthur G. Larkin, Meiselman, Denlea, Packman Eberz, P.C., White Plains, NY, of counsel), for Defendants-Appellees Marc J. Straus, M.D., Jeffrey M. Ambinder, M.D. and Eliot L. Friedman, M.D. Gideon A. Schor, Assistant United States Attorney, New York, NY, (Jeffrey Oestericher, Assistant United States Attorney, Mary Jo White, United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, New York, NY, of counsel), for Amicus Curiae United States of America. Jessie K. Liu, Washington, DC (Paul M. Smith, Robert M. Portman, Jenner Block, LLC, Washington, DC, of counsel), for Amici Curiae American Medical Association, Medical Society of the State of New York, American Academy of Family Physicians, American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, American Association of Neurological Surgeons-Congress of Neurological Surgeons, American College of Chest Physicians, American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery, and Association of American Medical Colleges. Anthony L. DeWitt, Jefferson City, MO (Bartimus, Frickleton, Robertson Obetz, PC, Jefferson City, MO, of counsel), filed a brief for the American Association for Respiratory Care as Amicus Curiae. Amy M. Wilken, Washington, DC (Dylan G. Trache, Taxpayers Against Fraud, The False Claims Act Legal Center, Washington, DC; Bruce J. Terris, Terris, Pravlik Millian, LLP, Washington, DC, of counsel), filed a brief for Taxpayers Against Fraud, The False Claims Act Legal Center as Amicus Curiae.

Comments