In the latest in a series of recent cases involving the “but-for” causation standard for Anti-Kickback Statute (“AKS”) claims, Judge Waverly D. Crenshaw in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee has dismissed United States, et al., ex rel. Nolan, et al. v. HCA Healthcare, Inc., 2025 WL 2713747 (M.D. Tenn. Sept. 22, 2025) pursuant to Rules 12(b)(6) and 9(b).
Judge Crenshaw weighed in Nolan whether the relators, co-owners of Pathologists Laboratory P.C. (“PLPC”), had plausibly alleged that: 1) defendant HCA Healthcare Inc. (“HCA”) solicited or received “remuneration” for purposes of an AKS violation; and 2) PLPC or the second lab submitted claims “resulting from” an illegal kickback for purposes of a False Claims Act (FCA). He ultimately determined that the relators had not, in fact, plausibly alleged that HCA either solicited or received “remuneration” for purposes of the AKS.
[caption id="attachment_2360" align="alignright" width="206"] Nathaniel M. Glasser and Daniel C. Fundakowski[/caption]
Last month, in United States ex rel. Helfer v. Associated Anesthesiologists of Springfield, Ltd., No. 3:10-cv-03076 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 14, 2016), the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois held that the retaliation provision of the False Claims Act (“FCA”) requires a whistleblower to show that protected activity was the “but-for” cause of the alleged adverse action.
The FCA’s retaliation provision entitles an employee to ...
Blog Editors
Recent Updates
- At the Half: No Free Kicks in FDA’s 2026 Enforcement
- CMS Codifies Drug Price Negotiation Program—With Modifications for 2029
- Federal Embryo Adoption Program Raises Potential Legal Questions for Reproductive Health
- Vermont’s H. 583 Restricts Private Equity and Hedge Funds with Ownership and Controlling Interests from Interfering with Clinical Judgment of Health Care Providers
- DOJ’s Second National Health Care Fraud Takedown of the Second Trump Administration Heavily Targets Medicaid Fraud