BROADCASTS.com

In this episode of S&C\u2019s Critical Insights, Annie Ostrager and Tracy Richelle High, Co-Heads of S&C\u2019s Labor & Employment Group, discuss the Supreme Court\u2019s June 16 decision in United States ex. rel. Polansky v. Executive Health Resources and implications for qui tam whistleblowers.\xa0\xa0\nThe False Claims Act (FCA) authorizes qui tam actions by private parties, called \u201crelators,\u201d who sue on behalf of the United States. The government may intervene and take over litigating the case during the \u201cseal period\u201d\u2014the window at the outset of the action during which the case is sealed. If the government chooses not to intervene, the relator litigates the action. But the government has a right to intervene later for \u201cgood cause.\u201d\nIn Polansky, the government chose not to intervene during the seal period, but years later, moved to dismiss the case. The relator argued that the government could not do so because it had not intervened during the seal period. The government responded that it could move to dismiss without intervening at all.\nThe Supreme Court adopted neither position. Instead, it held that the government may move to dismiss over a relator\u2019s objection an FCA action so long as it moved to intervene at some point.\nAnnie and Tracy note that the qui tam provision of the FCA remains a powerful tool for prosecutors to encourage whistleblowers to come forward.\xa0 But a relator\u2019s path to success may seem more uncertain after the Court\u2019s decision.