Universal Health Services, Inc. v. United States ex rel. Escobar

Universal Health Services, Inc. v. United States ex rel. Escobar
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued April 19, 2016 Decided June 16, 2016
Full case name	Universal Health Services, Inc. v. United States and Massachusetts ex rel. Julio Escobar and Carmen Correa
Docket no.	15-7
Citations	579 U.S. ___ (more) 136 S. Ct. 1989; 195 L. Ed. 2d 348
Opinion announcement	Opinion announcement
Holding
"The implied false certification theory can be a basis for [False Claims Act] liability when a defendant submitting a claim makes specific representations about the goods or services provided, but fails to disclose noncompliance with material statutory, regulatory, or contractual requirements that make those representations misleading with respect to those goods or services."
Court membership
Chief Justice John Roberts Associate Justices Anthony Kennedy · Clarence Thomas Ruth Bader Ginsburg · Stephen Breyer Samuel Alito · Sonia Sotomayor Elena Kagan
Case opinion
Majority	Thomas, joined by unanimous
Laws applied
False Claims Act

Universal Health Services, Inc. v. United States ex rel. Escobar, 579 U.S. ___ (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that "the implied false certification theory can be a basis for False Claims Act liability when a defendant submitting a claim makes specific representations about the goods or services provided, but fails to disclose noncompliance with material statutory, regulatory, or contractual requirements that make those representations misleading with respect to those goods or services."^[1][2]

Opinion of the Court

Associate Justice Clarence Thomas authored a unanimous opinion.^[2]

References

1. SCOTUSblog coverage
2. Universal Health Services, Inc. v. United States ex rel. Escobar, No. 15–7, 579 U.S. ____ (2016).

External links

• Text of Universal Health Services, Inc. v. United States ex rel. Escobar, 579 U.S. ___ (2016) is available from: Oyez (oral argument audio) Supreme Court (slip opinion) (archived)
• SCOTUSblog coverage