The False Claims Act (FCA) is a powerful federal law designed to combat fraud against the government. It allows individuals—known as "relators"—to sue on behalf of the government for false claims submitted for payment. However, understanding the statute of limitations is crucial for both relators and the government. This guide will break down the complexities of the FCA's statute of limitations, answering frequently asked questions along the way.
What is the Statute of Limitations for the False Claims Act?
The FCA's statute of limitations is six years from the date the government's claim accrued. This means the clock starts ticking from the date the false claim was submitted, or the date the government made the payment, whichever is later. However, there's a crucial caveat: the government can only file suit within ten years from the date the violation occurred.
What Constitutes a "False Claim" Under the FCA?
A "false claim" under the FCA is broadly defined. It encompasses any claim submitted to the government that is false or fraudulent, including:
- False statements: Making false statements about the goods or services provided.
- False records: Creating or submitting false records to support a claim.
- Conspiracy to defraud: Participating in a scheme to defraud the government.
- Kickbacks and bribes: Receiving or giving kickbacks or bribes in connection with government contracts.
- Violations of the Anti-Kickback Statute and Stark Law: These laws prohibit certain financial relationships between healthcare providers and referral sources.
How is the Accrual Date Determined?
Determining the accrual date is often the most complex aspect of FCA litigation. It’s not simply the date the claim was submitted. Instead, courts generally consider the date when the government knew or should have known about the fraudulent claim. This involves analyzing the government's knowledge and access to information. The discovery rule applies, meaning the clock starts when the government has sufficient information to discover the fraud.
What is the "Government's Knowledge" Exception?
The FCA contains a provision allowing for a longer statute of limitations if the government is unaware of the false claim. If the government did not know, and through the exercise of due diligence could not have known, of the fraud within the six-year period, the government can still bring suit within three years after that knowledge was acquired. However, this is still subject to the overarching ten-year limit.
Does the statute of limitations apply to qui tam actions?
Yes, the statute of limitations applies to qui tam actions (whistleblower lawsuits). The relator must file their complaint within the same time limits as the government.
What happens if the claim involves a continuing violation?
The statute of limitations generally applies to each individual claim, even in cases involving ongoing violations. However, some courts have applied a "continuing violation" doctrine, meaning the clock might not start until the last fraudulent act occurred within the relevant timeframe. This is a complex area of law, and the specifics depend on the facts of each case.
Can the statute of limitations be tolled (extended)?
Yes, there are circumstances where the statute of limitations might be tolled, meaning the clock temporarily stops. This can occur due to factors like the government's concealment of the fraud or the relator's incapacity. However, tolling requires a strong showing of exceptional circumstances.
What are the consequences of missing the statute of limitations?
Missing the statute of limitations means the government and/or the relator cannot pursue a claim under the FCA. This is a critical deadline, and missing it can have significant consequences for those involved.
Disclaimer: This information is for educational purposes only and should not be considered legal advice. Consult with an experienced attorney for advice regarding the False Claims Act and its statute of limitations in your specific situation. The application of the statute of limitations can be highly fact-specific and complex, requiring nuanced legal analysis.
