Election law changes? Our legislation tracker’s got you. Check it out!

United States, ex rel. Polansky v. Executive Health Resources, Inc.

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Supreme Court of the United States
United States, ex rel. Polansky v. Executive Health Resources, Inc.
Term: 2022
Important Dates
Argued: December 6, 2022
Decided: June 16, 2023
Outcome
affirmed
Vote
8-1
Majority
Chief Justice John Roberts • Samuel Alito • Sonia Sotomayor • Elena Kagan • Neil Gorsuch • Brett Kavanaugh • Amy Coney Barrett • Ketanji Brown Jackson
Concurring
Brett Kavanaugh • Amy Coney Barrett
Dissenting
Clarence Thomas

United States, ex rel. Polansky v. Executive Health Resources, Inc. is a case that was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on June 16, 2023, during the court's October 2022-2023 term. It was argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on December 6, 2022. In a 8-1 opinion, the court affirmed the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. The court held that the government can move to dismiss a qui tam Fraud Claim Act suit at any time during the litigation. This right is detailed in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a). Justice Elena Kagan delivered the opinion of the court.[1]

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The issue: The case concerned the legal authority and standards required for dismissing claims under the False Claims Act. Click here to learn more about the case's background.
  • The questions presented: "Whether the government has authority to dismiss an FCA suit after initially declining to proceed with the action, and what standard applies if the government has that authority."[2]
  • The outcome: In a 8-1 opinion, the court affirmed the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. The court held that the government can move to dismiss a qui tam Fraud Claim Act suit at any time during the litigation. This right is detailed in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a).[1]


    • The case came on a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. To review the lower court's opinion, click here.

    Timeline

    The following timeline details key events in this case:

    Background

    Dr. Jesse Polansky was an official with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) before consulting for Executive Health Resources, Inc., a private company providing review and billing certification services to hospitals and physicians that bill Medicare.[3]

    In 2012, Jesse Polansky alleged that Executive Health Resources, Inc. was fraudulently billing the U.S. government for unnecessary medical inpatient stays and filed a qui tam claim under the False Claims Act (FCA).[3]

    Two years after Polansky filed the case, the federal government concluded its own investigation and decided not to participate in the case. The case proceeded. In February 2019, the government notified the parties of its intent to dismiss the case. In August 2019, the government filed and the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania accepted the motion to dismiss, recognizing the circuit split on what legal standard applies to dismiss an FCA claim and concluding that the U.S. government did reach the standard, therefore declining to weigh in on the case.[3]

    On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal.[3]

    Polansky petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for review on January 26, 2022, and the court accepted the case to its merits docket for the October 2022-2023 term on June 21, 2022.[3]


    Questions presented

    The petitioner presented the following questions to the court:[2]

    Questions presented:
    “ Whether the government has authority to dismiss an FCA suit after initially declining to proceed with the action, and what standard applies if the government has that authority.[4] ”

    Oral argument

    Audio

    Audio of oral argument:[5]




    Transcript

    Transcript of oral argument:[6]

    Outcome

    In a 8-1 opinion, the court affirmed the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. The court held that the government can move to dismiss a qui tam Fraud Claim Act suit at any time during the litigation. This right is detailed in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a). Justice Elena Kagan delivered the opinion of the court.[1]

    Opinion

    In the court's majority opinion, Justice Elena Kagan wrote:[1]

    “

    The False Claims Act (FCA), 31 U. S. C. §§3729–3733, imposes civil liability on any person who presents false or fraudulent claims for payment to the Federal Government. The statute is unusual in authorizing private parties— known as relators—to sue on the Government’s behalf. When a relator files a complaint, the Government gets an initial opportunity to intervene in the case. If the Government does so, it takes the lead role. If not, that responsibility falls to the relator, the only person then pressing the suit. But even when that is so, the Government retains certain rights, including the right to intervene later upon a showing of good cause.
    The questions presented here concern the Government’s ability to dismiss an FCA suit over a relator’s objection. Everyone agrees that if the Government intervenes at the suit’s start, it can later move to dismiss. But the parties dispute whether, or in what circumstances, the same is true if the Government declines its initial chance to intervene. And the parties disagree as well about the standard district courts should use in deciding whether to grant a Government motion to dismiss.
    Today, we hold that the Government may seek dismissal of an FCA action over a relator’s objection so long as it intervened sometime in the litigation, whether at the outset or afterward. We also hold that in handling such a motion, district courts should apply the rule generally governing voluntary dismissal of suits: Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a). [4]

    		”
    —Justice Elena Kagan

    Concurring opinion

    Justice Brett Kavanaugh filed a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Amy Coney Barrett.

    In his concurring opinion, Justice Kavanaugh wrote:[1]

    “ I join the Court’s opinion in full. I add only that I agree with JUSTICE THOMAS that “[t]here are substantial arguments that the qui tam device is inconsistent with Article II and that private relators may not represent the interests of the United States in litigation.” Post, at 7–8 (dissenting opinion). In my view, the Court should consider the competing arguments on the Article II issue in an appropriate case.[4] ”
    —Justice Brett Kavanaugh

    Dissenting opinion

    Justice Clarence Thomas filed a dissenting opinion.

    In his dissent, Justice Thomas wrote:[1]

    “

    In my view, the text and structure of the False Claims Act (FCA), 31 U. S. C. §§3729–3733, afford the Government no power to unilaterally dismiss a pending qui tam action after it has “decline[d] to take over the action” from the relator at its outset. §3730(b)(4)(B). Thus, I would vacate the judgment below and remand for the Third Circuit to consider the serious constitutional questions that may affect the disposition of the Government’s motion to dismiss petitioner’s qui tam suit. Because the Court instead affirms, I respectfully dissent.[4]

    		”
    —Justice Clarence Thomas

    Text of the opinion

    Read the full opinion here.

    October term 2022-2023

    See also: Supreme Court cases, October term 2022-2023

    The Supreme Court began hearing cases for the term on October 3, 2022. The court's yearly term begins on the first Monday in October and lasts until the first Monday in October the following year. The court generally releases the majority of its decisions in mid-June.[7]


    See also

    External links

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 U.S. Supreme Court, “United States, ex rel. Polansky v. Executive Health Resources, Inc. et al.,” “Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit,” accessed June 16, 2023
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 U.S. Supreme Court, "21-1052 UNITED STATES, EX REL. POLANSKY V. EXECUTIVE HEALTH RESOURCES, INC. QP REPORT," June 21, 2022
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, Polansky v. Exec. Health Res., decided October 28, 2021
    4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    5. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Audio," argued December 6, 2022
    6. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Transcript," argued December 6, 2022
    7. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "The Supreme Court at Work: The Term and Caseload," accessed January 24, 2022
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=United_States,_ex_rel._Polansky_v._Executive_Health_Resources,_Inc.&oldid=9161115"