Mo. V. Spilton And False Claims Penalties


Law360, New York (January 25, 2011) -- Health care attorneys handling cases under the federal civil False Claims Act have negotiated case settlements based on a multiplier of alleged actual damages to federally funded programs. Double, and in cases of egregious conduct, treble, actual damages may form the basis for compromise, and penalty assessments may not even figure into settlement discussions.

But in cases where the parties litigate a federal FCA action, penalty assessments, starting at $5,000 per claim, are a real concern. And conflicting precedent exists as to whether a litigating defendant can attack the imposition of FCA civil penalty assessments as excessive under the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; see e.g. United States v. Cabera-Diaz, 106 F.Supp. 2nd 234 (D.P.R. 2000); United States v. Mackby, 261 F3d 821 (9th Cir. 2001); see also Hays v. Hoffman, 325 F3d 982 (8th Cir), cert denied 124 S. Ct. 277 (2003).

Please see full article below for more information.

LOADING PDF: If there are any problems, click here to download the file.

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Mintz Levin | Attorney Advertising

Written by:


Mintz Levin on:

JD Supra Readers' Choice 2016 Awards
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:

Sign up to create your digest using LinkedIn*

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.

Already signed up? Log in here

*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.