Elena M. Quattrone and Olivia K. Plinio, attorneys in the Health Care & Life Sciences practice, in the firm’s New York office, co-authored an article in Law360, titled “Checking In on How SuperValu Has Altered FCA Litigation.” (Read the full version – subscription required.)

Following is an excerpt (see below to download the full version in PDF format):

On June 1, in the case of U.S. ex rel. Schutte v. SuperValu Inc. and its companion case, U.S. ex rel. Proctor v. Safeway Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court, in a decision authored by Justice Clarence Thomas, unanimously settled a long-standing dispute over a subjective versus objective standard for scienter under the False Claims Act, holding that a defendant's own subjective belief is relevant to scienter, rather than what an objectively reasonable person may have known or believed.

In its wake, the SuperValu decision spawned reaction and analysis from across both the plaintiffs and defense bars, with attorneys opining on the impact of the SuperValu decision, its clear win for relators and the limitations on, or opportunities it presents to, defendants responding to allegations of FCA violations.

Though much can be speculated about the impact of SuperValu and the significance of the Supreme Court's decision, its reach may be more limited than initially anticipated. In this article, we examine the impact of SuperValu and subsequent interpretations of the holding, now almost four months after the decision, and what can be expected going forward when facing FCA liability.

Background on SuperValu and the Legal Standard

SuperValu, which was consolidated from two lower court decisions, involved allegations that the defendants, two retail pharmacy chains, overcharged the government for prescription drugs in violation of the FCA when it reported the full retail price of prescription drugs as their usual and customary price, when it was actually providing those drugs to patients at a significant discount.

The relators alleged that the pharmacies were overcharging Medicaid and Medicare for prescription drugs in violation of the FCA by submitting amounts as their usual and customary prices that did not reflect the significantly discounted prices that their retail customers often actually paid.

Pursuant to the FCA, a defendant may be held liable for an FCA violation if the defendant "knowingly presents, or causes to be presented, a false or fraudulent claim for payment or approval."

"Knowingly" is defined as acting with (1) actual knowledge of the falsity, (2) deliberate ignorance of the truth, or (3) reckless disregard of the truth. In the context of SuperValu, the usual and customary standard set forth by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services is susceptible to multiple interpretations in connection with prescription drugs, making it more of a challenge to prove the defendant had the requisite scienter if the defendant's actions were consistent with one of the objectively reasonable interpretations of the standard.

The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held in favor of the defendants in August 2021, finding that when a defendant's interpretation is considered objectively reasonable, the defendant's subjective intent is irrelevant to the scienter inquiry under the FCA.

Resoundingly rejecting the Seventh Circuit's interpretation, and resolving a long-standing circuit split, the Supreme Court emphasized that in regard to FCA cases, the defendant's subjective knowledge of the falsity of the claim is what is determinative.

Under the SuperValu standard, the Supreme Court's decision expanded the FCA scienter standard, essentially holding that the FCA may now reach defendants who knew that the claims they submitted were fraudulent, even if such defendants subsequently offered an objectively reasonable interpretation of a requirement material to the government's payment decision.

The Supreme Court further clarified that what defendants actually thought and believed at the time of claims submission, as opposed to what the defendants may have thought after submitting claims or any post-submission interpretations that might have rendered such claims accurate, is what is controlling.

The court defined the "reckless disregard" standard as "captur[ing] defendants who are conscious of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that their claims are false, but submit the claims anyway," arguably an expansion of the objective standard previously adopted by a number of circuits.

Related Materials

Jump to Page

Privacy Preference Center

When you visit any website, it may store or retrieve information on your browser, mostly in the form of cookies. This information might be about you, your preferences or your device and is mostly used to make the site work as you expect it to. The information does not usually directly identify you, but it can give you a more personalized web experience. Because we respect your right to privacy, you can choose not to allow some types of cookies. Click on the different category headings to find out more and change our default settings. However, blocking some types of cookies may impact your experience of the site and the services we are able to offer.

Strictly Necessary Cookies

These cookies are necessary for the website to function and cannot be switched off in our systems. They are usually only set in response to actions made by you which amount to a request for services, such as setting your privacy preferences, logging in or filling in forms. You can set your browser to block or alert you about these cookies, but some parts of the site will not then work. These cookies do not store any personally identifiable information.

Performance Cookies

These cookies allow us to count visits and traffic sources so we can measure and improve the performance of our site. They help us to know which pages are the most and least popular and see how visitors move around the site. All information these cookies collect is aggregated and therefore anonymous. If you do not allow these cookies we will not know when you have visited our site, and will not be able to monitor its performance.