840 F.3d 445 (7th Cir. 2016), 14-2506, United States v. Sanford-Brown, Ltd.
|Citation:||840 F.3d 445|
|Opinion Judge:||Manion, Circuit Judge.|
|Party Name:||UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. SANFORD-BROWN, LIMITED, et al., Defendants-Appellees. APPEAL OF: BRENT M. NELSON|
|Attorney:||For UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff: Matthew Dean Krueger, Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Milwaukee, WI; Charles W. Scarborough, Attorney, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, DC. For BRENT M. NELSON, Appellant: James H. Kaster, Attorney, Minneapolis, MN. For SANFORD-BROWN, LIM...|
|Judge Panel:||Before BAUER, MANION, and ROVNER, Circuit Judges.|
|Case Date:||October 24, 2016|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit|
Argued January 8, 2015
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. No. 12-cv-00775 -- J. P. Stadtmueller, Judge.
For UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff: Matthew Dean Krueger, Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Milwaukee, WI; Charles W. Scarborough, Attorney, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, DC.
For BRENT M. NELSON, Appellant: James H. Kaster, Attorney, Minneapolis, MN.
For SANFORD-BROWN, LIMITED, ULTRASOUND TECHNICAL SERVICES, INCORPORATED, Defendants - Appellees: Martin M. Loring, Attorney, Derek T. Teeter, Attorney, HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP, Kansas City, MO; Daniel J. Vaccaro, Attorney, S. Edward Sarskas, Attorney, MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP, Milwaukee, WI.
Before BAUER, MANION, and ROVNER, Circuit Judges.
Manion, Circuit Judge.
This matter is before us on remand from the United States Supreme Court for reconsideration
in light of its recent decision in Universal Health Services, Inc. v. United States, 136 S.Ct. 1989, 195 L.Ed.2d 348 (2016). See U.S. ex rel. Nelson v. Sanford-Brown, Ltd., 136 S.Ct. 2506, 195 L.Ed.2d 836 (2016). The only part of our previous opinion, United States v. Sanford-Brown, Ltd., 788 F.3d 696 (7th Cir. 2015), that is affected by the holding in Universal Health is part IV(B)(2), which addressed the plaintiff-relator's false presentment claim under 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1)(A) of the False Claims Act. We readdress that claim here in light of Universal Health and substitute the following discussion for part IV(B)(2) of our earlier opinion. The remainder of our previous opinion is reinstated, and we once again affirm the district court in all respects.
The plaintiff-relator's false presentment claim is based on a theory of " implied false certification." In Universal Health, the Court held that the implied false...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP