Mikes v. Straus

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• observing that FCA “was not designed for use as a blunt instrument to enforce compliance”
• noting that the FCA “does not encompass those instances of regulatory noncompliance that are irrelevant to the government’s disbursement decisions”
• noting that “one of [the FCA’s] primary uses has been to combat fraud in the health-care field”
• observing that a mere claim for payment does not suggest fraud unless it can be said that the defendant submitted the claim “while knowing ... that payment expressly is precluded because of some noncompliance by the defendant”
• noting that the False Claims Act’s qui tam provision is “designed to encourage private individuals to file suit by offering them a percentage of any money recovered”
• stating that this limitation is “related to” but distinct from materiality

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).