The jurisdictional bar provision: who is an appropriate relator?

Annals of health law Pub Date : 2008-01-01
Carolyn V Metnick
{"title":"The jurisdictional bar provision: who is an appropriate relator?","authors":"Carolyn V Metnick","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>After explaining the role of the qui tam litigation and demonstrating its importance to fighting Medicare fraud and abuse, this article provides a detailed explanation of various court interpretations of the jurisdictional bar provision of the False Claims Act, a common and contentious statutory pitfall for qui tam litigators. The author provides a thorough evaluation of the law among different circuits to assist litigators in choosing favorable jurisdictions to increase their likelihood of success.</p>","PeriodicalId":79788,"journal":{"name":"Annals of health law","volume":"17 1","pages":"101-33, table of contents"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2008-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of health law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

After explaining the role of the qui tam litigation and demonstrating its importance to fighting Medicare fraud and abuse, this article provides a detailed explanation of various court interpretations of the jurisdictional bar provision of the False Claims Act, a common and contentious statutory pitfall for qui tam litigators. The author provides a thorough evaluation of the law among different circuits to assist litigators in choosing favorable jurisdictions to increase their likelihood of success.

分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
司法许可条款:谁是合适的亲属?
在解释了小组诉讼的作用并展示了其对打击医疗保险欺诈和滥用的重要性之后,本文详细解释了对《虚假申报法》(False Claims Act)的司法限制条款的各种法院解释,这是小组诉讼常见且有争议的法定陷阱。作者对不同巡回法院之间的法律进行了全面的评估,以帮助诉讼律师选择有利的司法管辖区,以增加他们成功的可能性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Financial conflicts of interest in science. Beyond "safe and effective": the role of the federal government in supporting and disseminating comparative-effectiveness research. Putting together the pieces: recent proposals to fill in the genetic testing regulatory puzzle. Options for state and local governments to regulate non-cigarette tobacco products. Prescription data mining, medical privacy and the First Amendment: the U.S. Supreme Court in Sorrell v. IMS health Inc.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1