DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

§ 881

Citation
§ 881
Parent Document
United States v. Southland Management Corp., 326 F.3d 669 (2002)
Effective Date
2002-05-22
Original Source
https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/27565/united-states-v-southland-managem... ↗

Other Sections in This Document (1123)

Full Text

1,905 chars 
12
        While the dissent disputes this characterization of
Wilkins, the Wilkins opinion contains ample evidence indicating
that court’s intent to espouse a “claim materiality” requirement.
Initially, the court in Wilkins repeatedly characterizes the
FCA’s materiality element to require that a false submission bear
on the claimant’s entitlement to payment. See, e.g., 173 F.
Supp. 2d at 622 (characterizing Weinberger to suggest a
requirement that “the misrepresentation made had to bear on, or
be material to, the entitlement to payment”); id. at 623 (“A
statement or action in or related to a claim makes the claim
itself false only if it bears on, or is material to, the person’s
entitlement to the money or property claimed.”); id. at 624
(“[T]he FCA implicitly requires statements or conduct that are
material to the person’s entitlement to the money or property
claimed before liability can arise.”); id. at 630 (“Liability for
both a ‘false claim’ and a ‘fraudulent claim’ implicitly requires
a showing that what makes the claim either false or fraudulent is
material to the asserted claim of entitlement to receive money or
property from the government.”); id. at 635 (faulting the
government for failing to demonstrate “how the alleged ‘padding’
of waste costs was material to the defendants’ entitlement to be
paid by the government on the contract”) (emphasis added). In
its extended discussion of the materiality issue, the Wilkins
court never suggests that a false submission must have actually
affected the government’s ultimate decision to remit funds in
order to be “material.”
     Moreover, interpreting the Wilkins opinion to espouse an
“outcome materiality” requirement would be inconsistent with the
underlying rationale of that opinion. The Wilkins court
determined that – despite the absence of any statutory reference 20
While this court has indicated that the Act contains a