About This Blog
Presented by Hodgson Russ, the Whistleblower Blog is written by a team of lawyers experienced in successfully guiding both whistleblowers and companies accused by whistleblowers of wrongdoing through the False Claims Act process.
Stay Connected
Alexandria N. Rowen
Showing 2 posts by Alexandria N. Rowen.
The Supreme Court sides with whistleblowers in False Claims Act cases and rejects “objectively reasonable” interpretation of the law defense.
On June 1, 2023, the Supreme Court issued a decision in the pending whistleblower cases, United States ex rel. Schutte v. SuperValue and United States ex rel. Proctor v. Safeway. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals previously ruled against the whistleblowers, finding the retail pharmaceutical companies had reasonably interpreted regulatory requirements and, therefore, could not have knowingly submitted a false claim to the Government. The Supreme Court, however, disagreed.
Comment
Can an “Objectively Reasonable” Interpretation of the Law—Even if You Don’t Believe it—Protect Against False Claims Act Liability?
On April 18, 2023, the Supreme Court heard oral argument from three whistleblowers requesting that the Court revive their lawsuits against retail pharmacies SuperValue and Safeway. See https://www.scotusblog.com/2023/04/justices-will-consider-false-claims-in-two-pharmacy-cases/. The whistleblowers accused the companies of unlawfully pocketing millions of taxpayer dollars by knowingly overbilling government health insurance programs for prescription drugs. The whistleblowers brought the case under the False Claims Act—the government’s primary anti-fraud statute. Under the FCA, a defendant is liable for “knowingly” submitting a false claim to the government for payment. Knowledge can constitute either actual knowledge, deliberate ignorance, or reckless disregard.
Attorney Advertising
Hodgson Russ LLP
