Quality of Service Deficiency Rejected as Basis for False Claim
Client Alert | 1 min read | 01.12.02
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals has rejected allegations that a health care provider violated the False Claims Act by billing Medicare for health services deficient in quality. United States ex rel. Mikes v. Straus (Dec. 19, 2001).
Government prosecutors and qui tam relators have been increasingly creative in their use of the federal False Claims Act as a means of policing the healthcare industry. Prosecutors have gone so far as to assert that in filing a claim for payment with the government, the claimant certifies that it is operating in conformance with all laws and regulations the claimant is otherwise obligated to abide by, however unrelated to the claim submission those other legal obligations might be. Aggressive prosecutors argue that if this can be proven not to be the case, such a claim has been filed "falsely." Of particular note has been the government's recent positing that "quality of care" deficiencies may give rise to False Claims Act prosecutions.
The attached summary of the Mikes decision makes clear that the False Claims Act cannot be utilized indiscriminately as an enforcement weapon for prosecutors or relators to test a claimant's conformance with all legal obligations. In Mikes, the court specifically chides the government for seeking to use the FCA to enforce quality of care standards "best addressed by those professionals most versed in the nuances of providing adequate health care." This decision should assist significantly in redefining the fair bounds for the application of the False Claims Act in the healthcare arena.
Full case summary, provides further detail on this important False Claims case decision.
Insights
Client Alert | 8 min read | 09.09.25
On September 5, 2025, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) withdrew its appeals of decisions issued by Texas and Florida federal district courts, which enjoined the FTC from enforcing a nationwide rule banning almost all noncompete employment agreements. Companies, however, should not read this decision to mean that their noncompete agreements will no longer be subjected to antitrust scrutiny by federal enforcers. In a statement joined by Commissioner Melissa Holyoak, Chairman Andrew Ferguson stressed that the FTC “will continue to enforce the antitrust laws aggressively against noncompete agreements” and warned that “firms in industries plagued by thickets of noncompete agreements will receive [in the coming days] warning letters from me, urging them to consider abandoning those agreements as the Commission prepares investigations and enforcement actions.”
Client Alert | 12 min read | 09.09.25
Client Alert | 7 min read | 09.08.25
California’s Climate Disclosure Laws Continue to Roll Forward
Client Alert | 3 min read | 09.08.25
RADV Audits: Implications and Recommendations for Medicare Advantage Organizations
