January 27, 2020

January 24, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

Eleventh Circuit Endorses Objective Falsehood Standard for False Claims Cases Concerning Physician Judgment of Hospice Eligibility

“A mere difference of opinion between physicians, without more, is not enough to show falsity.”

In a 3-0 decision issued September 9, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed a three-year-old district court ruling in United States v. AseraCare, Inc. that a Medicare claim for hospice services cannot be deemed false under the False Claims Act (FCA) based on a difference in clinical judgment. This decision – apparently the first circuit-level determination of the “standard for falsity [under the FCA] in the context of the Medicare hospice benefit” – will affect all hospice providers, as the Department of Justice (DOJ) and whistleblowers will not be able to rely on disagreements between physician opinions as the basis for establishing falsity under the FCA. Instead, the Eleventh Circuit instructs that a claim for hospice reimbursement “cannot be “false” – and thus cannot trigger FCA liability – if the underlying clinical judgment does not reflect an objective falsehood.” The Eleventh Circuit’s decision emphasizes that reasonable differences of opinion between physician reviewers of medical documentation are not sufficient to suggest that the judgments concerning a particular patient’s eligibility for Medicare’s hospice benefit, or any claims submitted based on such judgments, are false for purposes of the FCA.


The defendants in this case (collectively, AseraCare) are a network of facilities that routinely provide hospice care to Medicare beneficiaries. The case began in 2008 when three qui tam relators filed an FCA complaint alleging AseraCare had submitted “unsubstantiated hospice claims.” DOJ subsequently intervened, and filed an amended complaint alleging that AseraCare had falsely certified certain patients as eligible for Medicare’s hospice benefit based on “erroneous clinical judgments,” and billed Medicare in violation of the false certification theory of FCA liability.

To bill Medicare for hospice services, a physician must “certify in writing, at the beginning of [each 60- or 90-day hospice] period, that the individual is terminally ill… based on the physician’s… clinical judgment regarding the normal course of the individual’s illness.” “Terminally ill” means a medical prognosis that the patient’s life expectancy is 6 months or less, however the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) have recognized that “[p]redicting life expectancy is not an exact science.” Therefore, Medicare permits reimbursement for hospice care that extends beyond 6 months, as long as the patient is recertified as terminally ill each 60- or 90-day period during which he or she remains in hospice. A physician’s certification must be accompanied by medical documentation that supports the prognosis that a patient is terminally ill.

In this case, the government took the position that AseraCare oversaw a corporate climate that used “aggressive quotas” for patient admissions and that “discouraged meaningful physician involvement in eligibility determinations.” DOJ identified 2,180 patients who received over 365 continuous days of hospice care from AseraCare, and then conducted a direct medical review of a 223 patient sample. To establish falsity concerning the certification of those patients as eligible for hospice care, DOJ introduced and relied upon the opinion of a medical expert who testified that 123 of the patients at issue, in his view, were not terminally ill at the time of certification. After the district court initially denied a motion for summary judgment filed by AseraCare, at trial a jury determined that AseraCare had submitted false claims for 104 of the 123 patients. However, the district court subsequently ordered a new trial in response to a post-verdict motion for judgment as a matter of law filed by AseraCare premised on mistaken jury instructions concerning the standard for falsity under the FCA. The district court then sua sponte – i.e., of its own accord – reconsidered and ultimately granted summary judgment to AseraCare after supplemental briefing. In granting summary judgment for AseraCare, the district court observed that this “case boils down to conflicting views of physicians about whether the medical records support AseraCare’s certifications that the patients at issue were eligible for hospice care.” The district court ruled that a difference of opinion between hospice certifying physicians and medical experts regarding patients’ hospice eligibility alone is not enough to “prove falsity without further evidence of an objective falsehood.”

Eleventh Circuit Decision

The Eleventh Circuit agreed with the district court’s FCA analysis, and thus with its order for a new trial, although it reversed the court’s summary judgment decision due to a failure to consider all evidence on the record concerning falsity. The Eleventh Circuit examined the text and history of Medicare’s hospice rules and regulations and found that the legal framework does not “state or imply that the patient’s medical records must unequivocally demonstrate to an unaffiliated physician, reviewing the records after the fact, that the patient was likely to die within six months… [r]ather, the framework asks a physician responsible for the patient’s care to exercise his or her judgment as to the proper interpretation of the patient’s medical records.” The Eleventh Circuit concluded that a physician’s clinical judgment “dictates eligibility as long as it represents a reasonable interpretation of the relevant medical records” and should be granted deference.

Thus, “when a hospice provider submits a claim that certifies that a patient is terminally ill ‘based on the physician’s or medical director’s clinical judgment,” such a claim cannot be subject to liability under the FCA unless the underlying judgment reflects “an objective falsehood.” In connection with this standard, the Eleventh Circuit provides examples of circumstances that could indicate an objective falsehood, including where:

  1. The certifying physician does not examine the patient’s underlying medical records;

  2. The certifying physician did not subjectively believe that the patient was terminally ill; or

  3. If expert evidence proves that no reasonable physician could have concluded that a patient was terminally ill, based on the relevant medical records.

In the absence of evidence of an objective falsehood, an FCA claim is likely fail as a matter of law based on the Eleventh Circuit’s holding in this case.

Why this Matters

The AseraCare decision is likely to have a widespread impact on FCA litigation of hospice claims. Throughout the Eleventh Circuit, DOJ and relators will have to meet a higher evidentiary standard to prove falsity, which preserves deference to the clinical judgment of the treating physician. While the AseraCare ruling specifically applies in the context of hospice reimbursement, it also provides important analysis of the probity of differing medical opinions and provider judgment in the context of FCA claims, which could in turn impact other cases and investigations where objective falsehood represents the standard for attachment of FCA liability.

Copyright © 2020 Robinson & Cole LLP. All rights reserved.


About this Author

Leslie Levinson Health Business Attorney

Leslie Levinson is co-chair of the firm's Transactional Health Law Group and a member of both the Health Law and Business Transaction Groups. He has represented private and public businesses throughout his more than 30-year career. Although Les maintains an active business law practice, he concentrates on the transactional, regulatory, and compliance representation of health care and life science clients, including home care and hospice companies, physician practices, hospitals, information technology and medical device companies, health care equipment providers, and health care investors...

David R. Gilboa Robinson Cole Health Law Associate

David Gilboa represents hospitals, health systems, physician groups, home care agencies, skilled nursing facilities, and other health care entities (both for profit and not-for profit) on a variety of health law and business issues, including transactional, corporate, regulatory, and compliance matters. He has extensive experience representing healthcare providers in all legal and regulatory matters. David is a member of the firm’s Health Law Group. 
David represents medical practices, healthcare agencies, skilled nursing facilities and hospitals on corporate transactions, and mergers and acquisitions from initial negotiations to closings. His work in this area includes drafting and negotiating letters of intent, term sheets, asset and stock purchase agreements, and all ancillary agreements and conducting due diligence.
David advises health care providers on federal and state fraud and abuse laws, including the False Claims Act, Anti-Kickback law and the Stark law. He counsels clients on the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act and similar state privacy laws, licensure and certificates of need, scope of practice issues, and other regulatory issues facing health care providers. He also works on clinical trial agreements and advises clients on compliance with federal and state research regulations and Institutional Review Board requirements. He also assists providers with managed care contracting, health care delivery networks, accountable care organizations, clinical integration, and physician arrangements.
Information Technology
David counsels health care providers on information technology issues and assists clients with software and hardware acquisitions and license arrangements, cloud services agreements, data use/transfer agreements and other information technology agreements.
General Corporate Matters
David also assists his clients on general corporate and business matters, which include drafting, reviewing and negotiating various contracts, such as sales agreements, license agreements, employment agreements, managed care contracts, business associate agreements, professional service agreements, and management and consulting services agreements.
Prior to joining the firm, David worked as an associate at two law firms in New York state, where he specialized in health care matters.

Conor Duffy Cybersecurity Attorney

Conor Duffy is a member of the firm's Health Law Group and its Data Privacy + Cybersecurity Team. He advises hospitals, physician groups, community providers, and other health care entities on general corporate matters and health law issues. He also counsels clients on what measures are needed to safeguard data and patient information.


Conor provides legal counsel to health care clients on various regulatory matters, such as Medicare and Medicaid program compliance, federal fraud and abuse laws, and the Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act...