A recent whistleblower case decision has revealed how federal prosecutors going after providers for fraud have been frustrated by the murkiness of federal regulations.
United States Ex Rel. Deborah Sheldon v. Allergan Sales, LLC is in many ways a typical whistleblower qui tam case. It involves allegations against Allergan, formerly Forest Laboratories, and its corporate compliance with complex, inscrutable Medicaid pricing and rebate regulations. Despite the superficial banality of the case, it raises some important considerations.
This case furthers the circuit court split regarding key concepts in False Claims Act (FCA) litigation. In the decision, the majority cites the legal experts of Calvin and Hobbes, noting that “people have asked how to play Calvinball. It’s pretty simple: you make up the rules as you go.”
That quote is one of the best parts of this decision from a divided three-judge panel of the Fourth Circuit. It summarizes the frustrations inherent in dealing with Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) regulations. I expect this decision to be appealed due to the inter-circuit disparities – and the $680 million on the line. But for now, this decision is the law in the Fourth Circuit.
The case turns on the defendant’s knowledge of falsity.
As a quick review, the FCA imposes liability on anyone who “knowingly” makes or uses a false or fraudulent claim. The statute defines knowingly as:
This knowledge is referred to as “scienter” in legal-speak. If someone lacks any of the legal knowledge requirements, fraud cannot be proved. It is this knowledge requirement that largely defines the outcome of this case.
It’s worth recalling that liability under the FCA requires no proof of intent to defraud.
As with most things in law, we also must consider two types of falsity: legal and factual. The straightforward case is factual falsity; this occurs when a false statement of a fact is made, such as saying that 100 items were sold when the actual sale was 50. In contrast, legal falsity arises when the claim is factually correct, but compliance with underlying statutes, regulations, or contract terms is knowingly misrepresented. The Sheldon case (and many others) relate to legal falsity. This is because following the guidance imposed by statutes or regulations may not be as straightforward as we’d like.
The majority opinion in the case dispenses with the case by concluding that the defendant did not act knowingly, so it need not address the falsity question. So why, you might ask, did the court conclude that the defendant did not act knowingly?
This is where things get murky. The three-judge panel disagrees based on potentially flawed logic and misapplication of legal precedent. But there are some transcendent messages we can glean from the judges’ dispute.
The clear message is that if the law or regulation is ambiguous, then under some circumstances, fraud may not even be possible. The court is divided over where the “ambiguity line” might be drawn. To take advantage of an ambiguity defense, you will probably need the following:
The bottom line is this: be sure to exhaustively research available guidance. Use the most conservative guidance available, and make sure your conclusions are objectively and subjectively realistic.
Read the decision in its entirety here.
Other useful references:
https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/civil/legacy/2011/04/22/C-FRAUDS_FCA_Primer.pdf
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fraud
https://www.weil.com/~/media/files/pdfs/understanding-the-false-claims-act-(75611346).pdf
As the federal government shutdown drags on, an alarming message began circulating across the healthcare community: “physicians won’t get paid until the government reopens.” The
“PAYGO” (Pay-As-You-Go) refers to a budget enforcement rule designed to impose fiscal discipline: when lawmakers pass legislation that increases mandatory spending or reduces revenue without
Please log in to your account to comment on this article.
Accurately determining the principal diagnosis is critical for compliant billing, appropriate reimbursement, and valid quality reporting — yet it remains one of the most subjective and error-prone areas in inpatient coding. In this expert-led session, Cheryl Ericson, RN, MS, CCDS, CDIP, demystifies the complexities of principal diagnosis assignment, bridging the gap between coding rules and clinical reality. Learn how to strengthen your organization’s coding accuracy, reduce denials, and ensure your documentation supports true medical necessity.
Denials continue to delay reimbursement, increase administrative burden, and threaten financial stability across healthcare organizations. This essential webcast tackles the root causes—rising payer scrutiny, fragmented workflows, inconsistent documentation, and underused analytics—and offers proven, data-driven strategies to prevent and overturn denials. Attendees will gain practical tools to strengthen documentation and coding accuracy, engage clinicians effectively, and leverage predictive analytics and AI to identify risks before they impact revenue. Through real-world case examples and actionable guidance, this session empowers coding, CDI, and revenue cycle professionals to shift from reactive appeals to proactive denial prevention and revenue protection.
Sepsis remains one of the most frequently denied and contested diagnoses, creating costly revenue loss and compliance risks. In this webcast, Angela Comfort, DBA, MBA, RHIA, CDIP, CCS, CCS-P, provides practical, real-world strategies to align documentation with coding guidelines, reconcile Sepsis-2 and Sepsis-3 definitions, and apply compliant queries. You’ll learn how to identify and address documentation gaps, strengthen provider engagement, and defend diagnoses against payer scrutiny—equipping you to protect reimbursement, improve SOI/ROM capture, and reduce audit vulnerability in this high-risk area.
Only ICD10monitor delivers what you need: updates on must-know changes associated with the FY26 IPPS, including new ICD-10-CM/PCS codes, CCs/MCCs, and MS-DRGs, plus insights, analysis and answers to your questions from two of the country’s most respected subject matter experts.
Federal auditors are zeroing in on Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility (IRF) and hospital rehab unit services, with OIG and CERT audits leading to millions in penalties—often due to documentation and administrative errors, not quality of care. Join compliance expert Michael Calahan, PA, MBA, to learn the five clinical “pillars” of IRF-PPS admissions, key documentation requirements, and real-life case lessons to help protect your revenue.
During this essential RACmonitor webcast Michael Calahan, PA, MBA Certified Compliance Officer, will clarify the rules, dispel common misconceptions, and equip you with practical strategies to code, document, and bill high-risk split/shared, incident-to & critical care E/M services with confidence. Don’t let audit risks or revenue losses catch your organization off guard — learn exactly what federal auditors are looking for and how to ensure your documentation and reporting stand up to scrutiny.
Learn how to navigate the proposed elimination of the Inpatient-Only list. Gain strategies to assess admission status, avoid denials, protect compliance, and address impacts across Medicare and non-Medicare payors. Essential insights for hospitals.
RACmonitor is proud to welcome back Dr. Ronald Hirsch, one of his most requested webcasts. In this highly anticipated session, Dr. Hirsch will break down the complex Two Midnight Rule Medicare regulations, translating them into clear, actionable guidance. He’ll walk you through the basics of the rule, offer expert interpretation, and apply the rule to real-world clinical scenarios—so you leave with greater clarity, confidence, and the tools to ensure compliance.
Happy National Doctor’s Day! Learn how to get a complimentary webcast on ‘Decoding Social Admissions’ as a token of our heartfelt appreciation! Click here to learn more →
CYBER WEEK IS HERE! Don’t miss your chance to get 20% off now until Dec. 2 with code CYBER24
