- Posts by Marguerite (Maggie) McGowan Stringer
AssociateClients rely on attorney Maggie Stringer to resolve their most complex and challenging legal disputes, especially when facing litigation involving sensitive employment or commercial claims impacting their businesses.
Maggie ...
On December 27, 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held in U.S. ex rel. Camburn v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation that a relator adequately pleads a False Claims Act (“FCA”) cause of action premised on violation of the Anti-Kickback Statute (“AKS”) by alleging, with sufficient particularity under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) (“Rule 9(b)”), that at least one purpose (rather than the sole or primary purpose) of the alleged kickback scheme was to induce the purchase of federally reimbursable health care products or services.[1] In doing so, the Second Circuit joins seven other Circuit Courts—the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Seventh, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits—in adopting the “at least one purpose” rule. This ruling lowers the bar in the Second Circuit for relators pleading AKS-based FCA claims.
Interplay Between FCA and AKS Violations
Under the AKS, “a claim that includes items or services resulting from a violation [of the AKS] … constitutes a false or fraudulent claim” under the FCA.[2]
The AKS prohibits persons from, among other things, “knowingly and willfully” soliciting or receiving “any remuneration (including any kickback, bribe, or rebate) directly or indirectly, overtly or covertly, in cash or in kind—
Blog Editors
Recent Updates
- First Circuit Clarifies When Clinical Labs Can Rely on Physician Orders
- Understanding the False Claims Act Statute of Limitations—and the Debate Over the “Last Overt Act” Rule
- Podcast: The Down-Low on Data for Value-Based Enterprises and Their Participating Providers – Diagnosing Health Care
- Second Circuit Affirms Denial of Preliminary Injunction in Challenge To N.Y. Law Restricting Weight Loss and Muscle Building Supplement Sales to Minors
- The DOJ’s Bulk Sensitive Data Rule and Your Obligation to “Know Your Data”