United States ex rel. Polansky v. Executive Health Resources, Inc.
View Official PDFBelow are plain-language sections to help you understand what the Court decided in United States ex rel. Polansky v. Executive Health Resources, Inc. and why it matters. Quotes are taken from the syllabus (the Court’s short summary at the start of the opinion).
Summary
A short, plain-English overview of United States ex rel. Polansky v. Executive Health Resources, Inc..
The Supreme Court addressed whether the government can dismiss a False Claims Act (FCA) action after initially declining to intervene. The Court affirmed that the government can move to dismiss an FCA action whenever it has intervened, either during the seal period or later. The decision clarified the application of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a) in such cases.
Holding
The single most important “bottom line” of what the Court decided in United States ex rel. Polansky v. Executive Health Resources, Inc..
The Court held that the government may move to dismiss an FCA action under § 3730(c)(2)(A) whenever it has intervened, whether during the seal period or later.
Constitutional Concepts
These are the Constitution-related themes that appear in United States ex rel. Polansky v. Executive Health Resources, Inc.. Click a concept to see other cases that involve the same idea.
-
Why Procedural Due Process is relevant to United States ex rel. Polansky v. Executive Health Resources, Inc.
The case involves the procedural requirements for the government to dismiss a qui tam action, including notice and an opportunity for a hearing.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)The FCA requires notice and an opportunity for a hearing before a Subparagraph (2)(A) dismissal can take place.
-
Why Judicial Review is relevant to United States ex rel. Polansky v. Executive Health Resources, Inc.
The Court reviewed the application of statutory provisions and procedural rules in the context of FCA litigation.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed after considering two legal questions.
-
Why Standing is relevant to United States ex rel. Polansky v. Executive Health Resources, Inc.
The case discusses the rights and roles of relators in FCA actions, which relates to who has the right to bring a case.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)The relator may continue as a party, 'subject to the limitations set forth in paragraph (2).'
Key Quotes
Short excerpts from the syllabus in United States ex rel. Polansky v. Executive Health Resources, Inc. that support the summary and concepts above.
The Government may move to dismiss an FCA action under § 3730(c)(2)(A) whenever it has intervened.
The FCA requires notice and an opportunity for a hearing before a Subparagraph (2)(A) dismissal can take place.
The Government gave good grounds for thinking that this suit would not do what all qui tam actions are supposed to do: vindicate the Government's interests.
