Chryssoula Marinos-Arsenis v. Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of New Jersey

The questions presented for review are:

1. Whether the implied certification theory of liability under the False Claims Act is viable, and if so, whether it requires that the Defendant(s) comply with a specific legal requirement that is material to the government’s payment decision.

2. Whether the First Circuit erred in applying the materiality standard for implied certification claims in this case.

3. Whether the lower court’s interpretation and application of the implied certification theory of False Claims Act (FCA) liability is consistent with the Supreme Court’s decision in Universal Health Services, Inc. v. United Qtrvftsc* p'V y*pl Ol/U'l/OO C»V / Cl/. i-/OtUUU// J 11UU Qfi Q Pf 1 QQQ /Om k_/» V_/ l.

4. Whether the lower court’s decision conflicts with other circuit courts’ interpretation and application of the implied certification theory of FCA liability.

5. Whether the lower court’s decision undermines the materiality standard set forth in Escobar by allowing FCA claims based on immaterial or minor violations.

6. Whether the lower court’s decision improperly expands the scope of FCA liability by allowing plaintiffs to bring claims based on implied or unspoken requirements that are not expressly designated as conditions of payment.