Can a False Claims Act Attorney Assist during Government Audits?

The False Claims Act applies broadly to any false claim for payment submitted to a federal agency or contractor working on federal contracts or programs. This includes Medicare and Medicaid billing, federal construction projects, defense contracts, grant administration, and any program funded in whole or in part by federal dollars. The statute defines "knowingly" to include actual knowledge, deliberate ignorance, or reckless disregard of the truth or falsity of information.

A claim need not be literally false to trigger liability; it can be implied false when a party certifies compliance with a contract term or regulation without meeting that requirement. For example, submitting an invoice for work performed while failing to comply with a mandatory safety protocol or labor standard may constitute a false claim even if the work itself was completed. The government need not prove intent to defraud; reckless conduct or deliberate indifference to compliance suffices.

Exposure extends beyond the submitting party to officers, employees, and agents who knowingly participate in the scheme. Corporate entities can face liability for the conduct of a single employee or contractor if that person acts with knowledge and the submission flows through company channels. This indirect liability structure means compliance training and internal controls carry substantial operational weight.

The False Claims Act permits private citizens, called relators, to sue on behalf of the United States in a qui tam action. A relator need not be a victim of fraud; they may be a current or former employee, competitor, or other individual with knowledge of the false claim. The relator files a complaint under seal, meaning the court keeps it confidential while the government investigates and decides whether to intervene.

If the government declines to intervene, the relator may proceed with the lawsuit independently, though the government retains the right to intervene later if circumstances change. A successful relator receives between 15 and 30 percent of the recovery if the government intervenes, or between 25 and 30 percent if the relator proceeds alone. This financial incentive structure has made qui tam actions a significant enforcement mechanism; the majority of FCA cases now originate as qui tam filings rather than government-initiated suits.

Corporate defendants often learn of FCA exposure when a complaint is unsealed, meaning the first notice may come from a subpoena or investigative demand rather than a civil summons. During the seal period, which typically lasts 60 to 90 days but may be extended, the company has limited opportunity to respond or gather information about the allegations. Once unsealed, the case enters standard federal litigation with discovery, motion practice, and potential settlement negotiations.

When the government receives a qui tam complaint or identifies potential FCA violations through audit or routine compliance review, it typically opens an investigation through the Office of Inspector General, the Department of Justice, or a federal agency's compliance office. Investigators may issue civil investigative demands seeking documents, communications, and testimony. Responding to these demands requires careful document preservation and legal review to protect privilege and manage disclosure.

Corporate counsel should understand that the government's investigation phase does not require court involvement; the agency may gather substantial evidence before any lawsuit is filed. In cases involving False Claims Act violations in healthcare or federal contracting, investigators often focus on billing records, compliance certifications, internal communications about known defects or non-compliance, and testimony from employees or contractors with direct knowledge.

The investigation may span months or years. During this period, a company faces operational uncertainty and potential reputational exposure if the investigation becomes public. Proactive remediation, including self-disclosure to the government, can reduce penalties and may support a settlement posture that avoids protracted litigation. Many companies choose to report suspected violations voluntarily rather than risk discovery through a qui tam suit or government audit.

When a False Claims Act case is filed in federal court in New York, such as the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, the case follows the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure rather than state law. However, New York courts have developed significant FCA case law interpreting what constitutes a "false claim" and how implied falsity theories apply in specific industries. Federal judges in New York have addressed complex questions about whether regulatory non-compliance automatically triggers FCA liability or whether the government must show materiality to the payment decision.

A practical consideration in New York federal practice involves the timing and completeness of damage calculations. Defendants often dispute the government's calculation of damages and the number of false claims alleged; incomplete or delayed submission of loss documentation can complicate settlement discussions or motion practice. Early coordination with accounting and compliance teams to quantify potential exposure and identify defensible positions strengthens the corporate legal strategy.

Corporate entities receiving federal funding or performing work on federal contracts should implement internal controls and compliance programs tailored to their specific regulatory environment. The following table outlines essential compliance elements that reduce FCA exposure:

Companies that discover potential FCA violations should consider voluntary disclosure to the Department of Justice. The government maintains a process for companies to report violations, cooperate in the investigation, and negotiate a settlement without facing the treble damages and full statutory penalties that litigation would impose. This posture requires careful legal analysis and timing; disclosure must occur before the company learns of a qui tam complaint or government investigation.

Beyond formal compliance programs, corporate leadership should foster a culture of integrity in billing and regulatory adherence. Many FCA violations arise from pressure to meet financial targets, cost overruns on contracts, or misunderstanding of regulatory requirements rather than intentional fraud. Clear communication from senior management about the legal and financial consequences of false claims, combined with reasonable timelines and resources to meet compliance obligations, reduces the likelihood that employees will resort to shortcuts or misrepresentations.

In healthcare and social service contexts, bodily injury claims intersect with FCA liability when a provider bills for services rendered under false compliance certifications or submits claims for services that caused harm due to non-compliance with safety or quality standards. For example, a healthcare provider that bills Medicare for treatment delivered in a facility that failed to meet infection control standards, resulting in patient harm, may face both bodily injury liability and FCA exposure for the false certification that the facility met regulatory requirements.

Corporate entities in healthcare, construction, or social services should recognize that FCA liability often compounds other legal exposures. A single incident of non-compliance can generate regulatory penalties, civil liability for bodily injury, and FCA liability for the false claim submitted. Integrated compliance and risk management that addresses both regulatory adherence and accurate billing reduces the likelihood of cascading liability.

Documentation of safety measures, quality assurance, and compliance verification becomes critical in these contexts. If a company can demonstrate that it took reasonable steps to ensure compliance and that an isolated incident does not reflect a pattern of knowing false claims, the company may defend against FCA allegations more effectively even if other liability exists.

Corporate leaders should evaluate their federal funding exposure, review current billing and compliance practices, and consider whether voluntary disclosure or enhanced internal controls would strengthen their legal and operational posture. Early consultation with counsel experienced in FCA matters allows companies to assess risk, implement targeted compliance improvements, and respond strategically to any government inquiry or qui tam allegation.