Bradley attorney Nick Danella was quoted in Law360 on how the U.S. Supreme Court's refusal to address whether a False Claims Act liability requires a claim to be objectively false affects federal contracts and contractors. The Supreme Court's decision to avoid the issue is causing a significant circuit split and may cause an increase in FCA settlements as defendants consider the costs of extended litigation and federal contractors consider the associated penalties, damages, and exposures.
Although the relevant Eleventh Circuit case, U.S. v. AseraCare Inc. et al., and both the Care Alternatives and Rollins Nelson cases come in the health care context, the principle of objective falsity can apply to all types of federal contracts and contractors, said Danella.
"Looking at the food fight, or the morass, among the circuits as to what's required to prove falsity as to a subjective opinion, whether a mere subjective disagreement of opinion is enough, or whether you need something more — whether you call that an objective falsity or not — that's an issue that is important and could do with some clarity," said Danella.
The original article, "Unaddressed Split on FCA Objectivity May Spur Settlements," appeared in Law360 on February 23, 2021.