Bnsf Railway Company v. Center for Asbestos Related Disease, Inc.

facts underlying the claims CARD submitted. See 31 U.S.C. §3731(b)(2); e.g.

United States ex rel. Purcell v. MWI Corp., 254 F. Supp. 2d 69, 78 (D.D.C. 2003).

The district court did not err at the summary judgment stage by concluding that the

earliest alleged false claim was not barred by the statute of limitations.

2. CARD also challenges several jury instructions. We review de novo

whether the jury instructions correctly state the law. Peralta v. Dillard, 744 F.3d

1076, 1082 (9th Cir. 2014) (en banc). “Jury instructions must be supported by the

evidence, fairly and adequately cover the issues presented, correctly state the law,

and not be misleading.” Id. An instruction error requires reversal “unless the error

is more probably than not harmless.” Clem v. Lomeli, 566 F.3d 1177, 1182 (9th

Cir. 2009) (quoting Dang v. Cross, 422 F.3d 800, 811 (9th Cir. 2005)).

a. CARD’s appeal involves 112 claims for which CARD submitted

Medicare eligibility forms certifying that the patients had been diagnosed with an

asbestos-related disease, even though no CARD doctor had made that diagnosis.

2 Although CARD challenges only 112 claims, BNSF presented evidence of more than 1,000…