Questions Follow 9th Circ. Solidification Of Escobar Test

By Jessica Westerman and Carolyn Wheeler (December 19, 2018, 12:13 PM EST) -- On Nov. 24, 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied the Stephens Institute's petition for rehearing en banc in United States ex rel. Rose v. Stephens Institute,[1] a False Claims Act case in which the relators alleged an "implied false certification" theory of liability. The decision left in place the panel's holding that the test laid out in United Health Services v. United States ex rel. Escobar,[2] is mandatory in False Claims Act cases alleging this theory of liability, supplanting the test previously articulated in Ebeid ex rel. United States v. Lungwitz.[3] By declining to elaborate on the differences between Escobar and Ebeid, the Ninth Circuit left practitioners with little guidance as to what types of allegations would have satisfied Ebeid, but will now be barred by Escobar....

Law360 is on it, so you are, too.

A Law360 subscription puts you at the center of fast-moving legal issues, trends and developments so you can act with speed and confidence. Over 200 articles are published daily across more than 60 topics, industries, practice areas and jurisdictions.

A Law360 subscription includes features such as

  • Daily newsletters
  • Expert analysis
  • Mobile app
  • Advanced search
  • Judge information
  • Real-time alerts
  • 450K+ searchable archived articles

And more!

Experience Law360 today with a free 7-day trial.

Start Free Trial

Already a subscriber? Click here to login

Hello! I'm Law360's automated support bot.

How can I help you today?

For example, you can type:
  • I forgot my password
  • I took a free trial but didn't get a verification email
  • How do I sign up for a newsletter?
Ask a question!