Abstract
A three circuit split has left federal courts around the country struggling to find and apply the correct causation standard when faced with a False Claims Act suit which has been brought by way of the Anti-Kickback Statute. Uncertainty was created after one court found a lesser standard of causation was acceptable between the kickback and the false claim, while other courts found “but for” causation was required for these cases to survive. This comment analyzes the decisions of the relevant courts, as well as the common law origins of the False Claims Act, canons of construction, as well as relevant prior cases. This comment also analyze this current controversy being played out within a separate circuit, which has been faced with both methods and will soon resolve the issue. These analyses will culminate in the decision that, due to principles of statutory interpretation, previous holdings by numerous courts, as well as the plain meaning of the law, “but for” causation is required in these actions. Requiring “but for” causation does not open the floodgates for healthcare fraud, rather provides clarity when patient’s lives are on the line.
Recommended Citation
Joseph M. Hill,
Kickbacks in the Healthcare Space: Resolving the Causation Split,
74
Cath. U. L. Rev.
307
(2025).
Available at:
https://scholarship.law.edu/lawreview/vol74/iss2/8
