| Description |
The first purpose of this Note is to highlight the existence of anti-kickback-based tainted claims and outline their development. Accordingly, Part II of this Note gives a brief summary of the FalseClaims Act and its qui tam provisions which allow private citizens to bring false claims actions on behalf of the government. Part III provides a similar overview of the Medicare/Medicaid anti-kickback [*1006] statute. Part IV outlines the doctrinal and legal evolution of anti-kickback-based tainted claims and summarizes the principal arguments advanced against the viability of anti-kickback-based tainted claims, namely that a violation of the anti-kickback statute cannot render a claim false for purposes of the False Claims Act because the violation cannot and does not cause the government injury.
This Note's second purpose is to point out that, in focusing on the False Claims Act's requirement that a claim be false or fraudulent, the courts, critics, and others have ignored the underlying structure of these new claims, which requires a false claims plaintiff to prove a violation of the anti-kickback statute as a predicate for proving a health care provider's claim false. Accordingly, Part V overviews the implications of the anti-kickback-based tainted claim's bifurcated structure and asserts that in recognizing anti-kickback-based tainted claims as valid causes of action, courts have implicitly allowed private citizens, as qui tam plaintiffs, to prosecute violations of the anti-kickback statute. After concluding that the antikickback statute contains no private cause of action or qui tam rights, this Note asserts that a private citizen can bring an anti-kickback-based tainted claim only by using the False Claims Act as a statutory vehicle.
Concluding that the False Claims Act could not serve as a mechanism for the prosecution of every other statutory violation, this Note advocates analysis of the anti kickback statute's legislative history to determine whether Congress intended for private citizens to prosecute violations of the anti-kickback statute by using the statutory vehicle of the False Claims Act. Specifically, this Note draws on the standards developed under analogous section 1983 claims as a basis for evaluating whether allowing a private citizen to prove an anti-kickback claim through such a statutory vehicle is consistent with congressional intent. This Note concludes that the anti-kickback statute's comprehensive enforcement scheme demonstrates a firm congressional intent to delegate all anti-kickback enforcement power to the federal government. Accordingly, courts should not allow qui tam plaintiffs to pursue anti-kickback claims under the statutory vehicle of the False Claims Act. (Description from Source) |