United States Ex Rel. Davis v. District of Columbia
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32956
| D.D.C. | 2011Background
- Relator Michael L. Davis brings a qui tam FCA action against the District of Columbia and DCPS for submitting a 1998 cost report to MAA without adequate documentation.
- D&A prepared the 1998 Medicaid cost claim ($67 million) as a HMS subcontractor; DCPS later engaged Maximus to prepare a new claim.
- DCPS paid a tentative $10.3 million FFP in 2000, while auditors reviewed 1996–1998 costs and disallowed items lacking documentation.
- Audits in 2001–2002 by Bert Smith & Co. and CMS concluded substantial documentation deficiencies; federal overpayments were later refunded.
- Plaintiff filed suit in 2006; U.S. declined intervention in 2007; court previously held the public-disclosure bar applied but relator was an original source.
- Court later reconsidered and dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because Findley-style pre-public-disclosure notice was not satisfied under the FCA as in effect in 2006.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the FCA public disclosure bar bars the suit | Davis argues he is an original source and the suit is not barred | District says the 2002 audit publicized the claimed fraud and bar applies | Bar applies; plaintiff not an original source under Findley rules in effect in 2006 |
| Whether Davis qualifies as an original source | Davis had direct, independent knowledge (D&A possessed docs) and disclosed to government in 2005 | Findley precludes original-source status unless disclosure occurred before public disclosure | Findley pre-public-disclosure requirement satisfied? No; Findley applied; not an original source under 2006 FCA |
| Whether the 2002 DC Auditor report constitutes public disclosure of the alleged fraud | The report does not disclose service documentation; lacks specifics of the 1998 claim | Report publicly disclosed lack of supporting documentation for 1996–1998 costs | Public disclosure; sufficient to trigger bar although focused on costs, not service records |
| Whether the action is barred for lack of jurisdiction | If original-source, jurisdiction remains; otherwise barred | Public disclosure bar defeats jurisdiction unless original source | Lacks jurisdiction; Findley-based original-source requirement not satisfied |
Key Cases Cited
- Springfield Term. Ry. Co. v. Quinn, 14 F.3d 645 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (public disclosure bar context and incentives of FCA qui tam)
- Findley v. FPC-Boron Empl. Club, 105 F.3d 675 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (pre-public disclosure government-notice requirement for original source)
- Rockwell Int’l Corp. v. United States, 549 U.S. 457 (Supreme Court 2007) (redefines 'information' for original-source inquiry, clarifying independence from public disclosure)
- Joseph v. Cannon, 642 F.2d 1373 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (public-disclosure framework guiding whether disclosures enable prosecution)