LEGALLY SPEAKING False Implied Certifications in Making Payment Requests — What We Can Learn from Lance Armstrong In April 2018, the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced a $5.0 million settlement reached in its lawsuit against former professional cyclist, Lance Armstrong. While the fallout from Armstrong’s latently- admitted use of performance-enhancing drugs (PEDs) was well-publicized, including lost sponsorship deals, stripped Tour de France titles and damage to his reputation, few were aware of Armstrong’s exposure to liability and criminal culpability for false claims against the government. The DOJ’s announcement reminded Armstrong and the rest of us of the golden rule of dealing with the government: honesty is the best policy. The corollary to that rule is that dishonesty is costly. Armstrong’s liability stemmed from false statements (denying the use of PEDs) he made, directly and through team members and other representatives, to U.S. Postal Service (USPS) representatives and to the public. USPS was the primary sponsor of the grand tour cycling team led by Armstrong. The government alleged in the lawsuit that Armstrong’s false statements were made to induce USPS to renew and increase its sponsorship fees, in violation of the False Claims Act. Enacted in 1863, the False Claims Act (FCA) was originally aimed at stopping and deterring frauds perpetrated by contractors against the government during the Civil War. Congress amended the FCA in the years since its enactment, but its primary focus and target have remained those who present or directly induce the submission of false or fraudulent claims. The current FCA imposes penalties on anyone who knowingly presents “a false or fraudulent claim for payment or approval” to the Federal Government. A “claim” now includes direct requests to the government for payment, as well as reimbursement requests made to the recipients of federal funds under federal benefits programs (such as Medicare). Thirty-one states, the 98 • DEEP FOUNDATIONS • JAN/FEB 2019 District of Columbia and Puerto Rico have also enacted laws imposing penalties for false claims against state agencies and their subdivisions, with most of these laws modelled after the federal FCA. Civil penalties under the FCA include fines of up to three times the amount the government paid for each false claim, plus an additional penalty of up to $11,000 per false claim. The criminal penalties include significant fines and jail time. The FCA prohibits the following conduct: 1. Presenting or causing someone to present a false or fraudulent payment or approval claim while knowing it is false 2. Making, using or causing someone to make or use a false record or statement that is material to a false or fraudulent claim while knowing it is false 3. Possessing or being in control of property or money meant for the government and delivering or causing someone to deliver less than what is owed to the government 4. Making or delivering to the government a receipt of property meant for the government without a complete knowledge of its accuracy with the intention to defraud 5. Buying or receiving debt or property from a government officer or employee who does not have the authority to sell or provide it, with knowledge of the lack of authority 6. Making, using or causing someone to make or use a false record or statement that is material to the government’s obligation to pay money or provide property with knowledge that the statement is false, or knowingly concealing and improperly avoiding or decreasing the amount of money or property owed to the government 7. Agreeing to do any of the above with someone else Brian S. Wood, Partner, and Alex Gorelik, Associate Smith, Currie and Hancock A unique feature of the FCA is the qui tam provision, allowing a whistleblower — who becomes aware of and exposes fraud against the government — to bring a lawsuit on behalf of the government and share in the penalties collected from the violator. In the case of Lance Armstrong, it was his former teammate and Tour de France chief domes- tique, Floyd Landis, that filed the original FCA lawsuit, which was later joined by the government. As a result of his qui tam law- suit, Landis will ultimately receive a $1.1 million share from the overall settlement and an additional $1.65 million for his legal costs. The Armstrong case reminds us that liability under the FCA is not limited to payment requests demanding incorrect amounts or containing clear defects in the request itself. A claimant is also liable for false certifications, whether express or implied. Under the “implied false certification” theory of liability, a payment request carries with it the claimant’s implied certification that the claimant has compl ied wi th relevant s tatutes , regulations, and/or contract requirements that are material conditions of payment. A failure to disclose a violation, breach or noncompl iance i s a t reated as a misrepresentation, rendering the payment request “false” or “fraudulent.” The Supreme Court reinforced and clarified liability for false implied certifications in its 2016 decision in Universal Health Services, Inc. v. U.S. ex rel Escobar. In Universal, a health care provider
