United States Ex Rel. Davis v. District of Columbia
400 U.S. App. D.C. 351
| D.C. Cir. | 2012Background
- Davis sued the District of Columbia and DCPS under the False Claims Act for submitting a 1998 Medicaid reimbursement claim with inadequate documentation.
- DCPS previously used Davis's firm for 1995–1997 claims; in 1998 DCPS switched to Maximus and did not submit Davis's documentation, despite his warnings about missing support.
- An MAA audit and a 2002 Auditor's report publicly disclosed that for 1996–1998 about $15 million in costs lacked adequate documentation.
- In May 2000 MAA paid a tentative $10.3 million for 1998 and later recovered $7.6 million; the public report prompted scrutiny of DCPS's documentation practices.
- Davis filed suit on April 4, 2006, alleging violations of § 3729(a)(1)-(3) of the FCA based on the 1998 claim's lack of documentation.
- The district court dismissed, holding Davis was not an original source under 31 U.S.C. § 3730(e)(4) (1986 version); on appeal, the D.C. Circuit addressed whether Rockwell overruled Findley and whether Davis could proceed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the suit is 'based upon' publicly disclosed allegations | Davis's allegation is more specific but substantially similar to the Auditor's disclosure. | Disclosures bar the suit unless the relator is an original source. | Yes, the suit is based on the public disclosure. |
| Whether Davis is an 'original source' under § 3730(e)(4)(B) | Rockwell revised the Findley pre-disclosure requirement; Davis qualifies as original source by providing information before filing. | Davis failed to provide information before public disclosure under Findley as interpreted post Rockwell. | Davis is an original source; the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. |
| Damages requirement under FCA for treble damages | If government paid, damages should be the full amount because it paid without proper documentation. | Damages must reflect loss in value of services, not simply payments made due to lack of documentation. | There were no damages; government received the promised services; treble damages potentially available only as penalties. |
| Six-year statute of limitations applicability | Limitations should not bar timely claims given discovery and disclosure history. | Limitations should apply to bar time-barred claims. | Remand on the statute-of-limitations issue. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Rockwell Int'l Corp., 549 U.S. 457 (Supreme Court, 2007) (redefined 'information' under § 3730(e)(4)(B))
- United States ex rel. Findley v. FPC-Boron Employees' Club, 105 F.3d 675 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (pre-public-disclosure requirement for original sources)
- United States ex rel. Springfield Terminal Ry. v. Quinn, 14 F.3d 645 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (precludes suits where public disclosure already provides basis for action)
- United States v. Sci. Applications Int'l Corp., 626 F.3d 1257 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (damages framework: value of government’s purchase must be diminished by fraud)
- United States ex rel. Settlemire v. District of Columbia, 198 F.3d 913 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (substantially similar allegations and public disclosure analysis)