United States Ex Rel. Hartpence v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc.

Bad Law
792 F.3d 1121·2015 WL 4080739
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJuly 7, 201512-55396, 12-56117California5,253 words

Opinion

Opinion

Bea, J.

If a whistleblower informs the government that it has been bilked by a provider of goods and services, and that scheme is unmasked to the public, under what conditions can that same whistleblower recover part of what the guilty provider is forced to reimburse the government? We hold today that there are two, and only two, requirements in order for a whistleblower to be an “original source” who may recover under the False Claims Act: (1) Before filing his action, the whistleblower must voluntarily inform the government of the facts which underlie the allegations of his complaint; and (2) he must have direct and independent knowledge of the allegations underlying his complaint. Abrogating our earlier precedent, we conclude that it does not matter whether he also played a role in the public disclosure of the allegations that are part of his suit. We also hold that the district court erred in its application of the rule that a whistleblower must be the first to file an action seeking reimbursement on behalf of the government based on the fraudulent scheme.

OVERVIEW

The False Claims Act (“FCA”), 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729-3733 , prohibits knowingly submitting to the federal…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.