The U.S. Supreme Court recently held that in order to violate the False Claims Act, a defendant’s knowledge and subjective beliefs matter—not to what an objectively reasonable person may have known or believed. That case – U.S. ex rel Schutte v. Supervalu, Inc. – dispels the notion that defendants can skate on an FCA claims by coming up with after-the-fact justifications. Understanding this case and its implications is a must for any compliance officer or in house or external counsel in the health care field.
Join HortySpringer partners Henry Casale and Dan Mulholland as they explain this case and what it will mean for health care providers in this new podcast episode.