1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Public Disclosure Of "Industry-Wide" Overbilling Practice Bars Qui Tam Suit Based Upon Similar But Undisclosed Fraudulent Transactions

Public Disclosure Of "Industry-Wide" Overbilling Practice Bars Qui Tam Suit Based Upon Similar But Undisclosed Fraudulent Transactions

Client Alert | 1 min read | 02.21.06

In United States ex rel. Gear v. Emergency Medical Assocs. of Ill. , the Seventh Circuit took an expansive view of the False Claims Act's ["FCA"] "public disclosure" bar , concluding that media and governmental reports concerning the general type of unlawful scheme alleged in a qui tam complaint sufficed to defeat the court's jurisdiction, even though such reports did not identify the particular defendant or any specific instances of its alleged misconduct. Specifically, the Seventh Circuit held that medical journal articles and a series of Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General audits concerning "industry-wide" Medicare billing abuses in which hospitals sought reimbursement for services provided by residents as if they were licensed attending physicians, were "public disclosures" that barred the relator's complaint involving alleged similar overbilling schemes, despite the fact that the disclosures did not identify the two defendants or their specific fraudulent transactions.

Insights

Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.26.25

From ‘Second’ to ‘First:’ Federal Circuit Tackles Obvious Claim Errors

Patent claims must be clear and definite, as they set the boundaries of the patentee’s rights. Occasionally, however, claim language contains errors, such as typographical mistakes or incorrect numbering. Courts possess very limited authority to correct such errors. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has emphasized that judicial correction is appropriate only in rare circumstances, where (1) the error is evident from the face of the patent, and (2) the proposed correction is the sole reasonable interpretation in view of the claim language, specification, and prosecution history. See Group One, Ltd. v. Hallmark Cards, Inc., 407 F.3d 1297, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) and Novo Indus., L.P. v. Micro Molds Corp., 350 F.3d 1348, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2003)....

View All Insights