Highlighting important False Claims Act cases that will unfold in 2025, Bloomberg Law sought insight from one of Keller Grover’s founding attorneys, Kate Scanlan. One key case interpreting the Anti-Kickback Statute could shape requirements for how much proof the government or a whistleblower must provide in False Claims Act cases alleging afraud against the U.S. government. Courts have split on the government’s burden to prove causation in a False Claims Act kickback case, with an important decision now pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. Scanlan, an experienced whistleblower lawyer, says any amendments to the longstanding False Claims Act always have bolstered the government’s ability to pursue kickback-driven fraud — not hindered it. In this instance, pharmaceutical company Regeneron is accused of giving money to a foundation to cover co-pays for Regeneron’s drug only, thus inducing patients to choose that drug, which then would be paid for by taxpayer-funded Medicare. The question before the First Circuit is whether the government or a whistleblower must prove the charge to the government healthcare program (by the person getting the kickback) would
not have happened “but for” the inducement or kickback. DOJ and whistleblower lawyers all argue the answer is a strong “No.” From the article: Courts should “focus on the conduct of the defendant,” said Kate Scanlan, who represents whistleblowers with Keller Grover LLP. “Requiring the government or the relator to prove but for causation incorrectly shifts the focus to a third party,” Scanlan said. We’ll be watching the case as it unfolds, and in the meantime, we’ll keep zealously representing whistleblowers who want to take a stand against wrongdoing. In more than 25 years litigating fraud and employment cases, the lawyers at Keller Grover have recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for clients and class members, and we’ve helped whistleblowers make successful reports and claim rewards. We can advocate for you. Contact us for a free, confidential consultation.