Commentary on last week’s decision in Universal Health Services v. United States ex rel. Escobar, in which the Court ruled on the circumstances in which the implied false certification theory can be a basis for liability under the False Claims Act, comes from Joan Krause, who at Hamilton and Griffin on Rights suggests that, although “both parties quickly claimed victory, in reality the decision is likely to satisfy no one and to raise as many questions as it answers”; Richard Samp, who at the Washington Legal Foundation’s Legal Pulse concludes that, although the ruling “leaves many important FCA questions unanswered and will undoubtedly provide fodder for court battles for years to come, it can fairly be classified as a victory for the wider government contracts defense community”; David Freeman Engstrom, who has a Q&A on the case at Legal Aggregate; Nicholas Bagley, who at The Incidental Economist notes that the decision “has enormous implications for Medicare and Medicaid fraud”; Marcia Madsen (and others), who at Meaningful Discussions observes that the Court’s ruling “clarifies the applicable standards but, arguably, does not dramatically alter the status quo”; and Greg Klass, who at New Private Law concludes that “the Court’s reliance on the half-truth doctrine might end up doing more harm than good.”

…