Not Better Late Than Never: Timing Requirement is Material to Payment
Client Alert | 1 min read | 06.15.18
On June 11, 2018, in U.S. ex rel Prather v. Brookdale Senior Living Communities Inc., the Sixth Circuit reversed dismissal of a False Claims Act suit against the country’s largest senior living provider because the relator had sufficiently alleged materiality. The qui tam suit was brought by a former nurse who alleged that physician certifications of patient need for home-health care were not signed until months after the care had been provided, in violation of 42 C.F.R. § 424.22 which requires that such certifications be completed at the time a plan of care is established or “as soon thereafter as possible.”
Applying the factors that the Supreme Court identified in its Escobar decision, the Sixth Circuit held in a 2-1 decision that the relator sufficiently pleaded that the timing requirement in § 424.22 was material by alleging that it was an express condition of payment and referring to guidance documents suggesting that compliance with the timing requirement went to the “essence of the bargain” between the defendants and the government. Notably, the lower court had drawn a negative inference on materiality because the complaint contained no allegations about the government’s past practice vis-à-vis claims that did not comply with the timing requirement in § 424.22. The Sixth Circuit found that this was “one step too far” because although past government actions are relevant to the materiality analysis, they are not dispositive.
Insights
Client Alert | 8 min read | 06.06.25
Litigation Funding Reforms: Clarity for UK Funders and Litigants Post-PACCAR
On 2 June 2025 the Civil Justice Council (a UK public body that advises on civil justice and civil procedure) (“CJC”) issued its Review of Litigation Funding Final Report (the “Report”). The CJC has provided comprehensive recommendations on the regulation and reform of litigation funding in England and Wales. The highlight recommendation of the Report is for the UK Government to remove third party litigation funding from the regulations and requirements of the Damages-Based Agreements Regulations 2013 (“DBA Regulations”), reversing the judgment of the Supreme Court in PACCAR.[1] Meanwhile, the UK Court of Appeal has recently endorsed a position that the Competition Appeal Tribunal (“CAT”) may order that third party funders of collective proceedings be paid first from litigation proceeds before claimants according to waterfall provisions in their funding agreements.
Client Alert | 2 min read | 06.06.25
Supreme Court Dismisses Cert Petition On Uninjured Class Members As Improvidently Granted
Client Alert | 2 min read | 06.06.25
Client Alert | 2 min read | 06.06.25
USPTO Director Clarifies Burden on IPR Petitioners Relying on Prior Art Cited During Prosecution