Opinion ID: 2967004
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: False Certification Cases

Text: A number of courts in a variety of contexts have found violations of the False Claims Act when a government contract or program required compliance with certain conditions as a prerequisite to a government benefit, payment, or program; the defendant failed to comply with those conditions; and the defendant falsely certified that it had complied with the conditions in order to induce the government benefit. Courts have allowed False Claims Act claims to go forward based on false certifications with respect to compliance with environmental standards, see United States ex rel. Fallon v. Accudyne Corp., 880 F. Supp. 636, 638 (W.D. Wis. 1995); false certifications of compliance with the non-discrimination requirements of the Fair Housing Act and with an affirmative action plan, see United States v. Incorporated Village of Island Park, 888 F. Supp. 419, 434-36, 440-41 (E.D.N.Y. 1995); false certifications of compliance with the Medicare anti-kickback and anti-self-referral statutes, see United States ex rel. Thompson v. Columbia/HCA Healthcare Corp., 125 F.3d 899, 902; United States ex rel. Pogue v. American Healthcorp., Inc., 914 F. Supp. 1507, 1509 & 1513 (M.D. Tenn. 1996); and false certifications of compliance with rules for continuing adherence to the requirements of a Small Business Administration minority contracting program, see Ab-Tech Construction, Inc. v. United States, 31 Fed. Cl. 429 (1994), aff'd, 57 F.3d 1084 (Fed. Cir. 1995).8 The courts in these _________________________________________________________________ 8 These last two cases involved implied certifications rather than actual certifications made by the defendants. That is, plaintiffs contended that the submission of invoices and reimbursement forms constituted implied certifications of compliance with the terms of the particular government program. Ab-Tech, 31 Fed. Cl. at 433-434; Pogue, 914 F. Supp. at 1509. At least one district court in this Circuit has expressed some reservations about the concept of an implied certification. See United States ex rel. 14 cases will not find liability merely for non-compliance with a statute or regulation. See, e.g., Thompson, 125 F.3d at 902. The Fifth Circuit has emphasized that liability for a false certification will lie only if compliance with the statutes or regulations was a prerequisite to gaining a benefit, and the defendant affirmatively certified such compliance: where the government has conditioned payment of a claim upon a claimant's certification of compliance with ... a statute or regulation, a claimant submits a false or fraudulent claim when he or she falsely certifies compliance with that statute or regulation. Thompson, 125 F.3d at 902. Accord United States ex rel. Joslin v. Community Home Health of Md., Inc., 984 F. Supp. 374, 383-84 (D. Md. 1997).9