Q: CFCA and hypothetical plaintiff's gullability.
In CFCA case, can supposed plaintiff's 'gullability' be a factor?
Plaintiff was induced into hospice with non-existent terminal diagnosis, extremely week after hospital associated complications: after two large volume blood transfusions and infection.
Once became functional, plaintiff insisted on medical tests and discharge from hospice, collected evidences that terminal illness was not possible.
Lawyers, want to be a Justia Connect Pro too? Learn more ›
- California
- (916) 704-3009
- View Profile
- Answered
A:
Under the California False Claims Act (CFCA), the plaintiff's gullibility is generally not a significant factor in determining the validity of the claim. The focus is on the defendant's actions and whether they knowingly submitted false or fraudulent claims to the government for payment or approval.
In the hypothetical scenario you described, the key factors would be:
1. Whether the defendant (presumably the hospice provider) knowingly presented a false or fraudulent claim, such as billing for hospice services when the patient did not have a terminal diagnosis.
2. Whether the defendant acted with deliberate ignorance or reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of the information submitted.
3. The evidence collected by the plaintiff to support the assertion that a terminal illness was not possible.
The plaintiff's gullibility or vulnerability due to their weakened state after hospital complications would not negate the defendant's potentially fraudulent actions. The CFCA is designed to protect the government and taxpayers from fraud, and the plaintiff's personal characteristics are not typically a central consideration.
However, it is essential to note that the plaintiff would need to provide strong evidence to support their claim that the hospice admission was based on a non-existent terminal diagnosis. This evidence would be crucial in establishing that the defendant knowingly submitted false claims.
In summary, while the plaintiff's gullibility may have contributed to their initial acceptance of the hospice admission, it would not likely be a significant factor in a CFCA case. The focus would be on the defendant's actions, knowledge, and the evidence supporting the alleged false claims.
Justia Ask a Lawyer is a forum for consumers to get answers to basic legal questions. Any information sent through Justia Ask a Lawyer is not secure and is done so on a non-confidential basis only.
The use of this website to ask questions or receive answers does not create an attorney–client relationship between you and Justia, or between you and any attorney who receives your information or responds to your questions, nor is it intended to create such a relationship. Additionally, no responses on this forum constitute legal advice, which must be tailored to the specific circumstances of each case. You should not act upon information provided in Justia Ask a Lawyer without seeking professional counsel from an attorney admitted or authorized to practice in your jurisdiction. Justia assumes no responsibility to any person who relies on information contained on or received through this site and disclaims all liability in respect to such information.
Justia cannot guarantee that the information on this website (including any legal information provided by an attorney through this service) is accurate, complete, or up-to-date. While we intend to make every attempt to keep the information on this site current, the owners of and contributors to this site make no claims, promises or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness or adequacy of the information contained in or linked to from this site.
