State Senator from Shreveport-Bossier seeks to curb over-the-top, dishonest ads
Massachusetts v. Universal Health
(U.S. Supreme Court, filed January 26, 2016): Arguing that false certification claims should not be subject to the False Claims Act and that the Supreme Court should help reign in the rampant FCA abuse occurring in the courts.
The Court remanded case back to lower court but held that “[T]he implied false certification theory can be a basis for liability, at least where two conditions are satisfied: first, the claim does not merely request payment, but also makes specific representations about the goods or services provided; and second, the defendant’s failure to disclose noncompliance with material statutory, regulatory or contractual requirements makes those representations half truths”. The Court went on to say that, “the False Claims Act liability for failing to disclose violations of legal requirements does not turn upon whether those requirements were expressly designated as conditions of payment. . . [N]ot every violation of such a requirement gives rise to liability.” The materiality requirement was intended to be “rigorous” and “demanding.” Case was decided on June 15, 2016.
Bill on seat belt admissibility heads to Governor
SCOTUS Determining Whether to Hear Appeal by Defendant
Writing for The Hill, ATRA President Tiger Joyce discusses the Biden administration’s plans to allow a settlement slush fund and issues the practice has caused at the state level.
ATRA President Tiger Joyce writes about issues with a landmark talc case in Missouri and how the U.S. Supreme Court can step in.