Although the Supreme Court ruled on False Claims Act (FCA) materiality requirements in Universal Health Services v. United States ex rel. Escobar, materiality issues continue to be litigated. In their Law360 analysis, Alex Ward, Daniel Chudd, Sandeep Nandivada, and Victoria Dalcourt Angle discuss recent U.S. Courts of Appeal decisions that have added additional nuances to the Supreme Court’s guidance regarding government acquiescence. The general rule is that continued post-violation payments and inaction by government agencies are evidence of immateriality and can signal government acquiescence to the noncompliance. The Courts of Appeal decisions show, however, that this acquiescence can be walked back.
Read our Law360 article to learn more about FCA materiality.
*Victoria Dalcourt Angle is a member of our Government Contracts practice in our Washington, D.C. office and not admitted to the bar.