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 | 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.
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.11.25
Director Squires Revamps the Workings of the U.S. Patent Office
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.10.25
Creativity You Can Use: CJEU Clarifies Copyright for Applied Art
Client Alert | 4 min read | 12.10.25
Federal Court Strikes Down Interior Order Suspending Wind Energy Development
