Opinion ID: 1057926
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Any person who:

Text: 1. Knowingly presents, or causes to be presented, a false or fraudulent claim for payment or approval; 2. Knowingly makes, uses, or causes to be made or used, a false record or statement material to a false or fraudulent claim; 3. Conspires to commit a violation of subdivision 1 [or] 2 . . . shall be liable to the Commonwealth for a civil penalty of not less than $ 5,500 and not more than $ 11,000, plus three times the amount of damages sustained by the Commonwealth. A person violating this section shall be liable to the Commonwealth for reasonable attorney fees and costs of a civil action brought to recover any such penalties or damages. All such fees and costs shall be paid to the Attorney General's Office by the 20 private citizen could do what the Attorney General could not do in terms of initiating a FATA action against the numerous entities and individuals, including agencies of the Commonwealth, listed in Code § 8.01-216.8 as quoted above. And, yet, the Attorney General, in acting for the Commonwealth, could then proceed with such action initiated by a private citizen. See Code §§ 8.01-216.5 and -216.6. Such an interpretation of these statutes would lead to this absurd result, which the General Assembly surely did not intend. As this Court has repeatedly stated, in the context of statutory construction, [t]he plain, obvious, and rational meaning of a statute is to be preferred over any curious, narrow, or strained construction, and a statute should never be construed in a way that leads to absurd results. Meeks v. Commonwealth, 274 Va. 798, 802, 651 S.E.2d 637, 639 (2007) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). Because an agency of the Commonwealth falls within the definition of the term [a]ny person in Code § 8.01-216.3(A) under my reading of this statute in conjunction with Code § 8.01-216.8, it follows, I believe, that the Attorney General defendant and shall not be included in any damages or civil penalties recovered in a civil action based on a violation of this section. (Emphasis added.) 21 has the authority to serve a CID on UVA, as an agency of the Commonwealth, based on an application of the same definition of the term any person under Code § 8.01-216.10(A). Pursuant to Code § 8.01-216.10(A), the Attorney General may serve a CID upon any person that the Attorney General has reason to believe . . . may be in possession, custody, or control of any documentary material or information relevant to a [FATA] investigation. In short, I would apply the same definition to the term any person as it appears in both Code § 8.01216.3(A) and Code § 8.01-216.10(A), and that term would include UVA as an agency of the Commonwealth. My reading of Code § 8.01-216.10 is indeed dictated by its common sense application. If the legislature intended to allow the Attorney General to bring a FATA action against an agency of the Commonwealth, the legislature undoubtedly intended to grant the Attorney General the authority to obtain relevant investigative information from an agency of the Commonwealth through the issuance of a CID to the agency, whether the object of the investigation was the agency or some third party. See McDaniel v. Commonwealth, 199 Va. 287, 292, 99 S.E.2d 623, 62728 (1957) (explaining that in the construction of a statute the court will look to the whole body of the Act to determine the true intention of each part. All of its parts must be examined so as to make it harmonious if possible.). 22 Furthermore, this interpretation of Code § 8.01-216.10 is bolstered by the fact that, pursuant to Code § 8.01-216.4, the filing of a FATA civil action by the Attorney General must be predicated upon an investigation conducted by the Attorney General into whether a violation of Code § 8.01-216.3 has occurred. See Code § 8.01-216.4 (The Attorney General shall investigate any violation of Code § 8.01-216.3. If the Attorney General finds that a person has violated or is violating § 8.01-216.3, the Attorney General may bring a civil action under this section.). Thus, the Attorney General would be required to conduct an investigation into a possible FATA violation involving a state agency before bringing a FATA civil action against the agency or a third party. To do so, the Attorney General, no doubt, would have to obtain information from the agency, as in the instant case, and the CID would be the Attorney General's primary means of obtaining that information under FATA's statutory scheme. 2 For these reasons, in my judgment, UVA is not exempt from the Attorney General's authority to issue CIDs pursuant to Code § 8.01-216.10. II. Evaluation of CIDs Issued to UVA 2 Nine of the nineteen statutes comprising FATA (Code §§ 8.01-216.10 through -216.18) address the substance and utilization of the CID under this statutory scheme. 23 Because I would hold that the Attorney General was authorized to issue CIDs to UVA, I would proceed, as did the circuit court, to review the CIDs at issue for their conformity to FATA's substantive requirements. The review must be limited, however, to determining the facial validity of the CIDs since there was no evidentiary hearing on UVA's petition to set aside the CIDs. Code § 8.01-216.11 provides that each CID shall state the nature of the conduct constituting the alleged violation of a false claims law that is under investigation, and the applicable provision of law alleged to be violated. The CIDs before us for review state that they were issued in connection with an investigation by the Attorney General into possible violations by Dr. Michael Mann of [Code] §§ 8.01-216.3(A)(1), (2), and (3) of FATA. They further provide that [t]he investigation related to data and other materials that Dr. Mann presents in seeking awards/grants funded, in whole or in part, by the Commonwealth of Virginia or any of its agencies as well as data, materials and communications that Dr. Mann created, presented or made in connection with or related to [five specifically identified] awards/grants . . . . I agree with the circuit court that this description failed to sufficiently describe the nature of the conduct constituting the alleged violation[s], as required by Code § 8.01-216.11. That is, it 24 did not sufficiently state what the Attorney General suspected Dr. Mann did that was false or fraudulent in violation of Code § 8.01-216.3(A). I disagree with the circuit court, however, in its interpretation and application of Code § 8.01-216.10(A) in relation to the court's review of the sufficiency of the CIDs. As previously noted, subsection A of the statute provides that, [w]henever the Attorney General . . . has reason to believe that any person may be in possession, custody, or control of any documentary material or information relevant to a [FATA] investigation, the Attorney General may issue a CID to such person and require this recipient to produce documentary material, answer written interrogatories and/or give oral testimony. In an alternative ruling, the circuit court held that, under the terms of Code § 8.01-216.10(A), the CIDs issued to UVA were defective on their face because they did not set forth the Attorney General's reason to believe that UVA was in possession of material or information pertaining to the subject investigation. I would reject this holding as there is no requirement in Code § 8.01-216.10 or any other provision of FATA that the CID must contain the Attorney General's reason to believe that the recipient of the CID possesses such material or information. The statutory requirements under FATA 25 for what must be contained in a CID are limited to Code § 8.01216.11. 3 I would thus affirm the circuit court's judgment setting aside the CIDs issued by the Attorney General to UVA, but, unlike the majority, I would do so without prejudice. 3 UVA indicates that the circuit court relied upon yet an additional ground for holding that the CIDs were defective, which was purportedly the circuit court's determination that the Attorney General could not investigate the four federal grant funds from the total of five grants listed in the CIDs because FATA only applies to funds provided by the Commonwealth. I do not believe the circuit court so held, as the circuit court only postulated in its letter opinion that, [i]f the Attorney General and [UVA] agree that the first four listed grants are federal grants, this [c]ourt supports the position of [UVA] that the Attorney General should not be able to investigate these grants . . . . In any event, the limited record in this case cannot support a decision on that issue. Without knowing the specific nature of those grants, no ruling could be made as to whether or not they were subject to FATA. 26