United States Ex Rel. Wilkins v. United Health Group, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that plaintiffs “need not allege a relationship between the alleged [anti- kickback] violations and the claims . . . submitted to the Government”
• holding that compliance with the AKS is a condition of payment under Medicare Part C because “Medicare regulations specifically name the AKS as a statute that is ‘designed to prevent or ameliorate fraud, waste, and abuse’”
• explaining that a plaintiff must prove that “the defendant presented or caused to be presented to an agent of the United States a claim for payment” (emphasis added) (citation omitted)
• explaining that “[a] legally false FCA claim is based on a ‘false certification’ theory of liability” (citations omitted)
• concluding that where the plaintiffs’ request for leave to amend their complaint was made in their reply to the defendants’ motion to dismiss and without a draft amended complaint, the district court “did not abuse its discretion by denying their deficient request to amend” (citation omitted)
• explaining that the Act covers someone who “knowingly falsely certifies that [he] has complied with a statute or regulation [that] is a condition for Government payment”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).