United States: Summary And Significance Of The Supreme Court's Decision In Escobar

On June 16, 2016, Justice Thomas, writing for a unanimous court in Universal Health Services, Inc. v. United States ex rel. Escobar, examined the circumstances under which an "implied false certification" can trigger liability under the False Claims Act (FCA) and clarified how the FCA materiality requirement should be enforced.

In construing the FCA, the court reaffirmed its prior ruling in Allison Engine Co. v. United States ex rel. Sanders, that the FCA is not "an all-purpose antifraud statute" or a "vehicle for punishing garden-variety breaches of contract or regulatory violations." Indeed, the court took the opportunity to "emphasize" that "the False Claims Act is not a means of imposing treble damages and other penalties for insignificant regulatory or contractual violations."

By expressly repudiating FCA liability based solely on a breach of a broad certification, such as averring compliance with the entire U.S. Code and Code of Federal Regulations, the court's decision will be instrumental in curtailing efforts to advance expansive theories of FCA liability.

A. Summary: The Supreme Court Finds Implied Certification Theory Viable Only In Limited Situations

The court granted certiorari to resolve the scope and validity of the implied false certification theory of liability. Under an implied false certification theory, a defendant can be liable for submitting a "false or fraudulent" claim, even when the defendant's claim for payment is literally true and accurate, if the defendant violated some statutory, regulatory or contractual provision and compliance with that provision was a precondition to government payment. Appellate courts had split three ways on this issue: (1) one circuit rejected this theory, finding that only an express falsehood on a claim form can render a claim "false or fraudulent"; (2) other circuits permitted the theory but only if the relevant statute, regulation, or contract expressly stated that compliance with the rule was a condition of payment; and (3) other courts applied the theory regardless of whether the relevant statute, regulation or contract specifically designated compliance with the relevant provision to be an express condition of payment as long as compliance with the relevant provision was in fact a condition of payment.

The court rejected all three of these approaches. Specifically, it found that the precise label that the government affixes to the relevant statute, regulation, or contract – such as, compliance is a "condition of payment" – is not determinative regarding whether the statute, regulation, or contract is material. Instead, the court ruled that an implied certification theory can be a basis for FCA liability only if two conditions are satisfied: (1) "the claim does not merely request payment, but also makes specific representations about the goods and services provided" (emphasis supplied); and (2) the defendant failed to disclose its noncompliance with a provision that is "material" to the government's decision to pay.

Condition 1: Specific representations about the goods and services provided

Before the court's ruling, the precise debate regarding the application of the implied false certification theory involved whether a submitted "claim" can be "false," although its representations are literally true, because of some violation of law or contract that is not expressly referenced on the claim form. Providing some guidance for future cases, the court held that submitting claims for payment using payment codes that corresponded to specific counseling services is equivalent to a representation that these services had been provided in accordance with applicable law. The court also held that submitting Medicaid reimbursement claims using National Provider Identification numbers is equivalent to a representation that the services were provided by properly trained and licensed employees. "By using payment and other codes that conveyed this information without disclosing Arbour's many violations of basic staff and licensing requirements for mental health facilities, Universal Health's claims constituted misrepresentations."

The issue not addressed, however, is the extent to which non-compliance with rules and regulations that are not directly linked to specific codes and factual representations on the claim form may result in FCA liability based upon an implied false certification theory. Indeed, by specifically linking the relevant law breached to specific codes used on the claim form, the court seemingly adopted the narrowest interpretation of an implied false certification theory by essentially asserting that the claim form itself must be expressly false (not impliedly false) because the code used did not accurately correspond to law (for example, a social worker's service is billed when the person is not a licensed social worker under law).

Condition 2: Materiality

After addressing the viability of implied false certification theories, the court turned to the FCA's materiality element. The court emphasized that the FCA's materiality requirement is "rigorous" and "demanding." The court identified a number of factors that may be relevant to materiality: (1) the provision is labeled a condition of payment, although, as noted below, this is not "dispositive"; (2) there exists "evidence that the defendant knows that the Government consistently refuses to pay claims in the mine run of cases based on noncompliance with the particular statutory, regulatory, or contractual requirement"; and (3) a "reasonable person" would realize the importance of the provision, and thus failing to "appreciate the materiality of that condition would amount to 'deliberate ignorance' or 'reckless disregard' of the 'truth or falsity of the information' even if the government did not spell this out."

The court also identified a number of limiting factors regarding materiality: (1)"A misrepresentation cannot be deemed material merely because the government designates compliance with a particular statutory, regulatory, or contractual requirement as a condition of payment"; (2) "Nor is it sufficient for a finding of materiality that the Government would have the option to decline to pay if it knew of the defendant's noncompliance"; (3)"Materiality . . . cannot be found where noncompliance is minor or insubstantial"; (4) "if the Government pays a particular claim in full despite its actual knowledge that certain requirements were violated, that is very strong evidence that these requirements are not material"; (5) and "if the Government regularly pays a particular type of claim in full despite actual knowledge that certain requirements were violated, and has signaled no change in position, that is strong evidence that the requirements are not material."

B. Significance: Escobar May Make it Easier to Dismiss FCA Suits at the Summary Judgment Stage

The Supreme Court's decision will have a significant impact on FCA jurisprudence. Under current case law, FCA liability frequently turns on whether courts label a violation of law to be a "condition of participation" (a breach of law or contract that is typically addressed through administrative remedies, such as corrective action plans, education, or the imposition of civil penalties), which does not result in FCA liability, or a "condition of payment" (a breach of law or contract that results in the denial of payment) which does result in FCA liability.1 To address this trend in case law and expand the scope of FCA liability, the government increasingly has required those who do business with the government to execute broad certifications stating that, in submitting a claim, they are representing that they have complied with all governmental rules and regulations, and this compliance is an express condition of payment.

The Supreme Court's holding on the rigors of the materiality element, and its decision to remand the case for a more stringent application of the materiality standard, will have a significant impact on FCA jurisprudence. Specifically, the court noted that it disagreed with the government's view of materiality "that any statutory, regulatory, or contractual violation is material so long as the defendant knows the Government would be entitled to refuse payment were it aware of the violation." Likewise, the court rejected the view that if the "Government required contractors to aver their compliance with the entire U.S. Code and Code of Federal Regulations, then under this view, failing to mention noncompliance with any of those requirements would always be material" because the "False Claims Act does not adopt such an extraordinarily expansive view of liability."

Additionally, the court's decision will facilitate the defendant's ability to prevail on a motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b), 12(b)(6) and at the summary judgment stage. Specifically, the court underscored that FCA plaintiffs must "plead their claims with plausibility and particularity under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8 and 9(b)," and the court specifically rejected Universal Health's "assertion that materiality is too fact intensive for courts to dismiss FCA cases on a motion to dismiss or at summary judgment." As a result, defendants will be positioned in FCA actions to compel FCA plaintiffs to assert plausible and specific materiality claims in their complaints to surmount Rules 12(b)(6) and 9(b). And even when FCA plaintiffs do specifically aver such materiality claims, defendants will be able to prevail on summary judgment on the issue of materiality if the undisputed facts show that the noncompliance with a statutory, regulatory, or contractual requirement was insignificant or was otherwise not likely to have induced the government not to pay the claim.


1 The underlying logic of this distinction is that the FCA is intended to protect the federal fisc. If a violation of law would not alter the government's payment on the claim, then, by definition, it is not actionable under the FCA because the violation has no impact on the federal treasury. Alternatively, if the violation would result automatically in denial of payment, then it directly impacts the federal fisc and is precisely the type of violation the FCA was intended to address if the defendant "knowingly" breached the law.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions