United States and Michigan, ex rel. Erik Olsen, et al. v. Tenet Healthcare Corporation, et al.

The circuits are intractably divided over whether Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) permits False Claims Act suits by plaintiffs who possess detailed knowledge of fraudulent schemes but lack access to billing records. Five circuits categorically bar plaintiffs without billing access from proceeding past the pleading stage unless they identify specific false claims. Seven circuits permit such relators to satisfy Rule 9(b) through detailed scheme allegations supporting a strong inference of claim submission, even if the complaint does not identify specific requests for payment. This Court has thrice sought the Solicitor General’s views. Each time, the Government argued that a qui tam complaint may satisfy Rule 9(b) even if it does not allege specific requests for payment but predicted any circuit conflict would resolve itself. The split has instead calcified. The Question Presented is: Whether Rule 9(b) requires False Claims Act relators who plead detailed firsthand knowledge of a fraudulent billing scheme to identify specific false claims when billing records remain exclusively within defendants’ control.