The Eighth Circuit’s decision in United States ex rel. Thayer v. Planned Parenthood addresses this very issue.9 As this Note argues, the Thayer decision not only departs from the Eighth Circuit’s previous position within the circuit split, but it also further contributes to the confusing variance of nuances and interpretations that exist regarding how to apply Rule 9(b) to FCA claims.10 Because the Thayer decision arguably increases the muddled confusion of Rule 9(b)’s application to FCA claims, it is imperative that the Supreme Court resolve the circuit split in the near future. In Part II, this Note analyzes the facts and holding of Thayer. Next, in Part III, this Note explores the legal background of the FCA and the development and current state of the circuit split surrounding Rule 9(b)’s application to FCA claims. Then, Part IV examines the court’s rationale in Thayer. Lastly, Part V more closely examines the circuit split, noting the complexity and divergence of the different standards being applied within the circuits that are adopting what appears to be a uniform “relaxed” approach to Rule 9(b). In addition, Part V argues that the Supreme Court should review these inconsistent approaches, and it assesses Thayer’s immediate implications for Missouri businesses that contract with the government.

Included in

Law Commons



To view the content in your browser, please download Adobe Reader or, alternately,
you may Download the file to your hard drive.

NOTE: The latest versions of Adobe Reader do not support viewing PDF files within Firefox on Mac OS and if you are using a modern (Intel) Mac, there is no official plugin for viewing PDF files within the browser window.