District Court Awards Summary Judgment to AseraCare in $200 Million Hospice False Claims Act Case
On March 31, 2016, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama granted summary judgment for AseraCare in one of the largest False Claims Act (FCA) lawsuits against a hospice provider. In this whistleblower case, the government sought over $200 million, alleging that defendant AseraCare overbilled Medicare for hospice services by falsely certifying that patients were eligible for hospice care.
The litigation began when six AseraCare employees in Alabama, Wisconsin and Georgia (the "relators") filed whistleblower cases under the FCA. The employees alleged that AseraCare knowingly submitted false claims to Medicare by falsely certifying that patients met the Medicare eligibility requirements for the hospice benefit. In order to be eligible for the Medicare hospice benefit, a patient's physician must certify that "the individual's prognosis is for a life expectancy of 6 months or less if the terminal illness runs its normal course." 42 C.F.R. § 418.22(b)(1). The Department of Justice (DOJ) intervened in January 2012.
In court filings, the DOJ alleged that it brought this case "based on evidence that AseraCare marginalized doctors, systematically pressured its own clinical staff to admit and keep ineligible patients, submitted false hospice claims for patients who were not terminally ill, and was put on notice from internal and external audits and employee complaints that this was occurring.”
Further, the DOJ argued that AseraCare is liable under the FCA “because it caused non-terminally ill patients to prematurely give up curative or rehabilitative care so that the company could bill Medicare for hospice payments.”
This case has involved several unique procedural elements. On June 25, 2015, the district court granted AseraCare's motion to bifurcate the trial into two phases: one phase relating to the "falsity" element of FCA liability ("Phase One"), and a second phase relating to the other elements of FCA liability ("Phase Two"). After the government prevailed in Phase One of the trial, the district court granted a new trial, concluding that it incorrectly instructed the jury on the falsity element. The court concluded that, to prove falsity, the government "would have to provide more evidence than just the opinion of a medical expert who disagrees with the certifying physicians and other medical experts regarding whether the medical records support hospice eligibility. A mere difference of opinion between physicians, without more, is not enough to show falsity." The court also gave notice that it would consider summary judgment for AseraCare on its own accord without a motion from the parties.
In granting summary judgment for AseraCare, the court concluded that the government cannot prove the falsity element of FCA liability based on one medical expert’s disagreement with AseraCare’s certification of hospice eligibility. The court further noted that "[i]f the court were to find that all the Government needed to prove falsity in a hospice provider case was one medical expert who reviewed the medical records and disagreed with the certifying physician, hospice providers would be subject to potential FCA liability any time the Government could find a medical expert who disagreed with the certifying physician's clinical judgment. The court refuses to go down that road."
Aside from the unique procedural elements of this case, it is a stark reminder of the risks that health care providers face from whistleblower lawsuits. Given the amount of money at stake in these cases, it’s likely that whistleblower litigation will increase. Congress and states have passed numerous new whistleblower protection statutes in recent years, and there have been a number of high profile and widely reported whistleblower awards resulting from employee allegations. In this environment, the risks of exposure and liability for health care companies and organizations have grown.
Additionally, this case illustrates the need for hospice providers to exercise diligence in making hospice eligibility determinations.
Jennifer has particular expertise in health law and she represents providers with emphasis in the areas of physicians, hospice, home care and long term care, including one of the country’s largest long-term care organizations. She has a vast array of experience in teaming with providers in the areas of regulatory compliance and contracts.View All Posts by Author ›
- Fraud & Abuse
- Affordable Care Act
- Workers' Compensation
- Employee Benefits
- News & Events
- Legislative Updates
- Health Care Reform
- Medicaid Planning
- COVID-19 and Workers' Compensation
- Long-Term Care
- HITECH Act
- Electronic Health Records
- Did you Know?
- Labor Relations
- Accountable Care Organizations
- 6th Circuit Court of Appeals
- Health Insurance Exchange
- Digital Assets
- Department of Labor
Best Lawyers® 2020
Congratulations to the attorneys of the Health Care practice group at Foster Swift Collins & Smith, PC for their inclusion in the Best Lawyers in America 2020 edition. Firm-wide, 42 lawyers were listed. Best Lawyers lists are compiled based on an exhaustive peer-review evaluation and as lawyers are not required or allowed to pay a fee to be listed; inclusion in Best Lawyers is considered a singular honor. Health Care practice group members listed in Best Lawyers are as follows:
- Gilbert M. Frimet, Southfield
- Richard C. Kraus, Lansing
- Gary J. McRay, Lansing
- Jack A. Siebers, Grand Rapids/Holland
- Jennifer B. Van Regenmorter, Holland
To see the full list of Foster Swift attorneys listed in Best Lawyers 2020, click here.