United States Ex Rel. Barrett v. Columbia/HCA Healthcare Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• allowing a retaliation claim to proceed even though initial False Claims Act allegations were not viable
• finding Rule 9(b) unmet absent identification of the Medicare patient in the scheme
• “[C]ompliance with the Anti-Kickback [Statute] and Stark laws would affect the government’s decision to pay.”
• “All that is required is that an employee be investigating false or fraudulent claims aimed at extracting money from the government.”
• “While a complaint that covers a multi-year period may not be required by Rule 9(b) to contain a detailed allegation of all facts supporting each and every instance of submission of a false claim, some information on the false claims must be included.”
• “While a complaint that covers a multi-year period may not be required by Rule 9(b) to contain a detailed allegation of all facts supporting each and every instance of submission of a false claim, some information on the false claims must be included.” (emphasis added)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).