1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |For Whom Does the Appeal Clock Toll? Vitiation vs. Finality

For Whom Does the Appeal Clock Toll? Vitiation vs. Finality

Client Alert | 1 min read | 01.12.16

In Guardian Angels Med. Serv. Dogs Inc. v. U.S. (Jan. 8, 2016), the Federal Circuit held that a CO's request to evaluate additional information after a default termination "vitiated the finality" of the termination and reset the 12-month appeal clock, even though the CO neither received new information nor spent any time reconsidering her decision. Reversing the CFC's dismissal of the appeal as time-barred, the court held that, when a CO "evince[s] a clear willingness to consider additional evidence," the appeal period begins anew, rather than merely being suspended, and explained that "whether the contracting officer 'spends time' considering the request is not the proper standard."

Contacts

Insights

Client Alert | 5 min read | 12.12.25

Eleventh Circuit Hears Argument on False Claims Act Qui Tam Constitutionality

On the morning of December 12, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit heard argument in United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581 (11th Cir. 2025). This case concerns the constitutionality of the False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam provisions and a groundbreaking September 2024 opinion in which the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida held that the FCA’s qui tam provisions were unconstitutional under Article II. See United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Fla. Med. Assocs., LLC, 751 F. Supp. 3d 1293 (M.D. Fla. 2024). That decision, penned by District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, was the first success story for a legal theory that has been gaining steam ever since Justices Thomas, Barrett, and Kavanaugh indicated they would be willing to consider arguments about the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions in U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Res., 599 U.S. 419 (2023). In her opinion, Judge Mizelle held (1) qui tam relators are officers of the U.S. who must be appointed under the Appointments Clause; and (2) historical practice treating qui tam and similar relators as less than “officers” for constitutional purposes was not enough to save the qui tam provisions from the fundamental Article II infirmity the court identified. That ruling was appealed and, after full briefing, including by the government and a bevy of amici, the litigants stepped up to the plate this morning for oral argument....

View All Insights