Southern Ry. v. Winchester's Admx.

How courts have described this case

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

• upholding liability against a supplier where the FCA claims were predicated oh. kickbacks allegedly paid to pharmacies that certified compliance with the AKS
• rejecting argument that FCA claims based on AKS violations include “a strict ‘but for’ causation requirement”
• reviewing legislative history to conclude that section 1320a-7b(g) codifies the false-certification theory
• “The Government pleads no facts supporting this general assertion [that many, states require express AKS compliance certifications]. Without more, these allegations are insufficient to plead an express false certification.”
• “There is no indication in either the law itself or the legislative history that Congress intended to narrow the scope of ‘falsity’ under the [False Claims Act] when it amended the [Anti-Kickback Statute] to add Section 1320a-7b(g).”
• rejecting the but-for causation standard

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).