United States v. Huron Consulting Group, Inc.
843 F. Supp. 2d 464
S.D.N.Y.2012Background
- Relator sues under FCA and NY analogs for allegedly inflated outlier reimbursements (turbo-charging) by St. Vincent's via Huron; Empire processed outlier claims as a financial intermediary.
- FOIA responses and related documents form the bulk of publicly disclosed information underlying the allegations.
- Schindler Elevator Corp. v. United States ex rel. Kirk informs the public disclosure bar and original-source analysis.
- Court previously allowed amendments; Third Amended Complaint targets proper Huron entities and Empire’s processing.
- Court must address public disclosure and original-source issues given FOIA-disclosed data and Landgraber's direct knowledge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether public disclosure bars jurisdiction | Public disclosures via FOIA responses do not divest jurisdiction where relator is original source | Public disclosures trigger bar unless relator is original source | Public disclosure exists but relator is original source; jurisdiction retained |
| Whether Landgraber is an original source for Huron claims | Landgraber had direct, independent knowledge from St. Vincent’s reimbursement work | Long Island Lighting requirements may bar originality | Landgraber is an original source for Huron |
| Whether Landgraber is an original source for Empire claims | Landgraber learned Empire used outdated RCC, showing core fraud | No direct knowledge of Empire’s internal processing | Landgraber is an original source for Empire |
| Whether Long Island Lighting’s third element is still valid post-Rockwell | Long Island Lighting remains valid; relator need not be direct conduit to disclosure | Rockwell repudiates linking original-source status to public-disclosure information | Third element abrogated; original-source analysis now focuses on direct/independent knowledge of core fraud |
| Impact of Rockwell and Schindler on jurisdiction analysis | Rockwell supports treating information underlying allegations as core | Schindler clarifies FOIA public-disclosure scope and original-source | Rockwell controls; Long Island Lighting third requirement abrogated; Sha), jurisdiction preserved |
Key Cases Cited
- Rockwell Int’l Corp. v. United States ex rel. Stone, 549 U.S. 457 (U.S. 2007) (rejected Long Island Lighting’s third requirement; information underlying the allegations governs original-source status)
- Schindler Elevator Corp. v. United States ex rel. Kirk, 131 S. Ct. 1885 (S. Ct. 2011) (public disclosure bar timing; FOIA disclosures as reports under FCA)
- United States ex rel. Doe v. John Doe Corp., 960 F.2d 318 (2d Cir. 1992) (framework for subject-matter jurisdiction; original-source concept)
- United States ex rel. Dhawan v. N.Y. Med. Coll., 252 F.3d 118 (2d Cir. 2001) (core information standard for original-source)
- United States ex rel. Kreindler & Kreindler v. United Technologies Corp., 985 F.2d 1148 (2d Cir. 1993) (origin and scope of the original-source requirement)
- Springfield Terminal Ry. Co. v. Quinn, 14 F.3d 645 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (public-disclosure sufficiency; inference of fraud from disclosed information)
- United States ex rel. Dick v. Long Island Lighting Co., 912 F.2d 13 (2d Cir. 1990) (Long Island Lighting's original-source element analyzed (textual-premise disagreement))