U.S. Supreme Court Closes Last Chapter in 8-Year-Old FCA Case

This month, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear a $320 million qui tam case filed against Carlton Fields client Chapters Health System in 2010 by whistleblower Nancy Chase. In denying Chase’s petition, the Supreme Court agreed with Chapters’ argument that no circuit split existed concerning how precisely FCA suits must allege fraudulent billing, and put the matter to rest for Chapters.

Chase, a former social worker with Chapters subsidiary LifePath Hospice, alleged that Chapters and its subsidiaries fraudulently billed Medicare and Medicaid by admitting and recertifying patients who were ineligible for hospice care in violation of the False Claims Act. Chase alleged that employees of Chapters, a hospice chain, engaged in various activities that resulted in false claims being made to the federal government. Chase, who was terminated in 2012, also alleged that other companies received kickbacks from Chapters for their patient referrals, and that LifePath retaliated against her for pointing out the alleged fraud. Both the federal government and the state of Florida declined to intervene in the case, which was brought in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida.

To defend Chapters and its subsidiaries, Carlton Fields argued that Chase lacked firsthand, inside information on billing practices that would give rise to the “indicia of reliability” necessary to counter the fact that she failed to include specific examples that any specific fraudulent claims were submitted. In September 2016, U.S. District Court Judge James Moody agreed and dismissed the case with prejudice, concluding, “any further amendments would be futile.” The district court noted that Chase also failed to state a cause of action for her conspiracy and retaliation claims.

Chase appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in October 2016. In January 2018, a three- judge panel unanimously affirmed the lower court’s ruling. “Although Ms. Chase details a scheme, her complaint does not include specific examples of the conduct she describes or allege the submission of any specific fraudulent claim,” the appeals court wrote. “Neither does she allege the basis of her knowledge of the defendants’ fraudulent billing practices – a process she was far removed from as a social worker.”

©2026 Carlton Fields, P.A. Carlton Fields practices law in California through Carlton Fields, LLP. Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please use our Contact Us form via the link below. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites.