840 F.3d 445 (7th Cir. 2016), 14-2506, United States v. Sanford-Brown, Ltd.

Docket Nº:14-2506
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
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 445

840 F.3d 445 (7th Cir. 2016)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,

v.

SANFORD-BROWN, LIMITED, et al., Defendants-Appellees.

APPEAL OF: BRENT M. NELSON

No. 14-2506

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit

October 24, 2016

         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.

          Affirmed.

         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.

          OPINION

Page 446

          Manion, Circuit Judge.

          This matter is before us on remand from the United States Supreme Court for reconsideration

Page 447

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.

         I.

         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 reading

FREE SIGN UP