Contributors
Recent Posts
- The Ten Year Wait is Over: HRSA Releases 340B Dispute Resolution Final Rule
- HHS Final Rules Modernize the Stark Law and Anti-Kickback Statute to Usher in Value-Based Care
- The CDC’s New Definition of “Close Contact”: What You Need To Know
- U.S. Department of Labor Issues Revised Regulations Implementing FFCRA Leaves Following New York Court’s Decision
- Michigan Reinstitutes Pre-COVID Scope of Practice, Licensure, and Liability Standards
- DHHS Issues Terms and Conditions for Relief Funds
- Nursing Home Compliance Under the COVID-19 Microscope
- OCR Guidance During the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency
- Michigan Governor’s Executive Order 2020-30 Expands Health Care Professionals’ Scope of Practice and Lifts Certain Licensure Restrictions
- Medicare Telemedicine Reimbursement Updates in Response to COVID-19
Related Practices
- Adoption & Assisted Reproductive Technology
- Ambulatory Care Providers
- Bankruptcy, Insolvency & Creditors' Rights
- Bioethics & End-of-Life Care
- Biotechnology and Life Science
- Cannabis Law
- Government Investigations and Corporate Compliance
- Health Care
- Health Care Administrative Law & Regulatory Appeals
- HIPAA—Health Information Privacy & Security
- Hospitals and Health Care Systems
- Long-Term & Post-Acute Care Providers
- Nonprofits & Tax-Exempt Organizations
- Pharmacies, DEA & Robinson-Patman/340B Drug Programs
- Physicians, Dentists and Non-Physician Practitioners
Related Industries
New Development: Government Authority to Dismiss Qui Tam Actions
The False Claims Act grants the government the authority to dismiss qui tam actions over the objections of the relator if “the court has provided the person with an opportunity for a hearing on the motion.” 31 USCS § 3730. However, what constitutes a “hearing” under the Act and the extent of the government’s authority to unilaterally dismiss qui tam actions has been the subject of dispute amongst the Courts of Appeals.
Recently, in United States ex rel. CIMZNHCA, LLC v. UCB, Inc., No. 17-CV-765-SMY-MAB, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64267 (S.D. Ill. Apr. 15, 2019), the Southern District of Illinois rejected the government’s efforts to dismiss a qui tam action pursuant to 31 USCS § 3730. Applying the standard set forth by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in United States ex rel. Sequoia Orange Co. v. Baird-Neece Packing Corp., the Court denied the government’s motion to dismiss citing the government’s failure to conduct a “minimally adequate investigation to support the claimed governmental purpose.” United States v. UCB, Inc., No. 17-CV-765-SMY-MAB, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64267, at *10. The reasoning applied by the District Court in United States v. UCB, Inc., comports with the standards applied by the Ninth and Tenth Circuit Courts of Appeals. See United States ex rel. Sequoia Orange Co. v. Baird-Neece Packing Corp., 151 F.3d 1139 (9th Cir. 1998); Ridenour v. Kaiser-Hill Co., Ltd. liability Co., 397 F.3d 925 (10th Cir. 2005).
The approach taken by the Southern District of Illinois differs from the deferential approach taken by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. The interpretation adopted by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals is that section 3730(c)(2)(A) “give[s] the government an unfettered right to dismiss an action” and renders the government’s decision to dismiss “unreviewable.” Swift v. United States, 355 U.S. App. D.C. 59, 318 F.3d 250, 252 (2003). Under the standard set forth in Swift v. United States, “the function of a hearing when the relator requests one is simply to give the relator a formal opportunity to convince the government not to end the case.” Id. at 253. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals have made similar holdings regarding the government’s unlimited discretion to dismiss qui tam actions. See Riley v. St. Luke's Episcopal Hospital, 252 F.3d 749 (5th Cir. 2001); United States ex rel. Rodgers v. Arkansas, 154 F.3d 865 (8th Cir. 1998).
The government has appealed the decision made by the Court in the Southern District of Illinois in United States ex rel. CIMZNHCA, LLC v. UCB, Inc. and continues to pursue its efforts to dismiss qui tam actions. The government’s efforts in United States ex rel. CIMZNHCA, LLC v. UCB, Inc. are a continuation of the objectives expressed by the government in the Granston Memo. If the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirms the decision of the Southern District of Illinois, the government will be required to conduct investigations of each qui tam action it intends to dismiss in order to achieve those objectives.