We previously reported on the Seventh Circuit’s decision in United States ex rel. Nelson v. Sanford-Brown Ltd., in which the court rejected the implied certification theory of FCA liability and granted summary judgment for the defendant.
In a previous post we discussed the Seventh Circuit’s decision in Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College, in which a three-judge panel concluded that Title VII did not protect an employee from discrimination based on her sexual orientation.
The Seventh Circuit recently affirmed a district court decision upholding payment under a life insurance policy purchased by a securities intermediary.
Can a Relator Plead with Particularity Without Alleging That a Patient’s Bill Was Submitted to the Government?
The Seventh Circuit says yes.
Pine Top Receivables has returned to the published opinions of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
Nurse-Relator’s Personal Opinion About Medical Necessity Insufficient to Support FCA Complaint, Holds Seventh Circuit
On September 1, 2016, the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit largely affirmed dismissal of a relator’s amended complaint pursuant to the particularity requirement of Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b).
In December 2015, an Illinois federal court held that the language of a service-of-suit clause in a reinsurance contract was a voluntary removal waiver and sent a case removed to federal court back to state court.
The US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently reviewed a district court’s dismissal of an FCA claim against the City of Chicago, in which the relator alleged that the City’s certifications of compliance with civil rights laws were false because the City engaged in practices which increased racial segregation.
The Seventh Circuit in Chicago has issued a remarkable decision,. In Ortiz v. Werner Enterprises, Inc., No. 15-2574, the three judge panel overturned a series of cases regarding a so-called “convincing mosaic” test.
On August 12, 2016, the Seventh Circuit decided Woodman’s Food Market, Inc. v. Clorox Co., No. 15-3001, and held that Clorox’s refusal to sell bulk-sized packages of certain products to some retailers, like Woodman’s, when it sold bulk-sized items to “big box” retailers, like Costco and Sam’s Club, was not a violation of the Robinson-Patman Act’s prohibition on the disproportionate provision of promotional services under 15 U.S.C. § 13(e).