History
  • No items yet
midpage
30 F.4th 649
7th Cir.
2022
Read the full case

Background

  • Relator Proctor sued Safeway under the False Claims Act, alleging Safeway submitted inflated Medicare/Medicaid claims by reporting its higher “retail” prices as the pharmacies’ “usual and customary” (U&C) prices while offering lower discounted prices to many cash/customers.
  • Safeway used three relevant pricing practices between 2006–2015: ad hoc individual price-matching, a $4 Generics Program (reported as U&C in some divisions), and membership discount clubs (MCGP/LMP) that required simple enrollment and were not reported as U&C.
  • CMS issued a “Lower Cash Price Policy” memorandum (Oct. 2006) and incorporated a footnote into the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit Manual (Dec. 2006) stating Wal‑Mart’s consistent $4 generics price counts as U&C.
  • PBMs and some state Medicaid programs sent communications suggesting discounts should be included in U&C; parties dispute whether those communications constituted authoritative agency guidance.
  • The district court granted Safeway summary judgment applying Safeco’s standard (as applied to the FCA in Schutte), and the Seventh Circuit affirmed: Safeway’s U&C interpretation was objectively reasonable prior to Garbe, and the CMS Manual footnote was not authoritative guidance under Safeco.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Does Safeco’s objective‑reasonableness/authoritative‑guidance standard apply to the FCA scienter element? Safeco should not shield FCA claims; scienter can be shown here. Safeco applies; court should require objective reasonableness and agency guidance to show reckless disregard. Court applied Schutte: Safeco applies to FCA reckless‑disregard inquiry.
Was Safeway’s interpretation of “usual and customary” objectively unreasonable? Safeway’s discounts (esp. where majority of cash sales were discounted) show its reported retail prices were false and unreasonable. The regulatory text was ambiguous pre‑Garbe; Safeway’s reading (excluding some price‑matches and club discounts) was one objectively reasonable interpretation. Court: Safeway’s interpretation was objectively reasonable for its price‑matching and discount programs prior to Garbe.
Did the CMS Manual footnote constitute “authoritative guidance” that warned Safeway away from its interpretation? The footnote expressly treated consistent Wal‑Mart $4 pricing as U&C and should have put Safeway on notice to report discount‑club prices as U&C. The footnote is nonbinding, isolated in a long manual, addressed sponsors not pharmacies, and was removed/changed over time—so not authoritative. Court: The single, nonbinding footnote was not authoritative under Safeco and did not establish reckless disregard.
Are PBM and state communications authoritative guidance under Safeco? PBM and state notices showed industry and regulators understood U&C to include discounts. PBM contracts and state Medicaid materials are not controlling federal agency guidance for the scienter inquiry. Court: PBM/state materials are not authoritative guidance from CMS and therefore do not satisfy Safeco’s requirement.

Key Cases Cited

  • Safeco Ins. Co. of Am. v. Burr, 551 U.S. 47 (2007) (establishes objective‑reasonableness + authoritative‑guidance standard for reckless‑disregard inquiries)
  • United States ex rel. Schutte v. SuperValu Inc., 9 F.4th 455 (7th Cir. 2021) (applies Safeco standard to FCA scienter; held similar CMS footnote insufficiently specific re price‑matching)
  • United States ex rel. Garbe v. Kmart Corp., 824 F.3d 632 (7th Cir. 2016) (held discount‑program prices can be U&C when broadly available)
  • Univ. Health Servs., Inc. v. U.S. ex rel. Escobar, 579 U.S. 176 (2016) (FCA requires rigorous scienter; not a vehicle for ordinary regulatory breaches)
  • Kisor v. Wilkie, 139 S. Ct. 2400 (2019) (limits deference to agency interpretations; relevant to whether CMS Manual merits deference)
  • Purcell v. MWI Corp., 807 F.3d 281 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (discusses need for specificity and authoritative quality in agency guidance under Safeco)
Read the full case

Case Details

Case Name: Thomas Proctor v. Safeway, Inc.
Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Date Published: Apr 5, 2022
Citations: 30 F.4th 649; 20-3425
Docket Number: 20-3425
Court Abbreviation: 7th Cir.
Log In
    Thomas Proctor v. Safeway, Inc., 30 F.4th 649