Attempt to use Constitution to Stop a Qui Tam False Claims Act Case

Post 5486

FCA’s Qui Tam Provisions do not Violate the Appointments Clause.

In United States Of America, Clarissa Zafirov, ex rel; Dr. v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, d.b.a. Vipcare, Physician Partners, LLC, Anion Technologies, LLC, Freedom Health, Inc., Optimum Healthcare, Inc., Physician Partners Specialty Services, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 1, 2026).

The False Claims Act (“FCA”) allows the Attorney General to bring civil suits against perpetrators of fraud against the government. This case involves another portion of the FCA-the qui tam provisions-which allow people, called relators, who have knowledge about fraud against the government to pursue a case against the perpetrator of the fraud.

Dr. Clarissa Zafirov filed a qui tam action under the False Claims Act on behalf of the United States against Florida Medical Associates, LLC, doing business as VipCare, and related entities. She alleged that the defendants knowingly submitted false diagnosis codes to Medicare to obtain payments greater than those to which they were entitled. After years of litigation, the defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings or dismissal, arguing that the FCA’s qui tam provisions violated Article II of the Constitution.

LAW:

The Appointments Clause requires presidential appointment, with Senate confirmation unless otherwise provided, for “Officers of the United States.” Under Supreme Court precedent, a person is an officer only if the person occupies a continuing position established by law and exercises significant authority pursuant to federal law.

ANALYSIS:

The Eleventh Circuit disagreed with the district court’s conclusion that FCA relators are officers of the United States. The court held that relators do not occupy a continuing position because their role is tied to a single case, is intermittent and temporary, provides no continuing compensation, and involves duties that are personal to the relator rather than duties that continue when the individual changes.

DISCUSSION:

The court rejected the defendants’ argument that the FCA creates a continuous “office of relator.” It reasoned that the term does not appear in the FCA and that the proper inquiry is whether the individual relator occupies a continuing position, not whether multiple private parties may file qui tam suits at different times. The court also distinguished relators from independent counsel because independent counsel could be replaced, received compensation from public funds, and held duties that continued beyond the individual officeholder. Relators, by contrast, pursue personal claims based on case-specific knowledge and cannot be replaced by another relator if they abandon the case.

CONCLUSION:

The Eleventh Circuit held that FCA relators are not officers of the United States because they do not occupy a continuing position established by law. Therefore, the FCA’s qui tam provisions do not violate the Appointments Clause. The court vacated the district court’s dismissal and remanded for consideration of the defendants’ remaining Take Care Clause and Vesting Clause arguments.

Relators are not officers of the United States because they do not occupy a continuing position established by law. Accordingly, we join our sister circuits that have addressed this issue and hold that the qui tam provisions of the FCA do not violate the Appointments Clause. Therefore, the Eleventh Circuit vacated the district court’s order dismissing this case and remand for the district court to evaluate the defendants’ remaining constitutional arguments.

Zafirov and the United States are correct that relators do not hold a continuing position, which is sufficient to determine that relators are not officers who must be presidentially appointed. Accordingly, the Eleventh Circuit had no need to reach any of their remaining arguments.

Because the Eleventh Circuit concluded that relators  are not officers of the United States subject to the Appointments Clause the case must continue.

CONCLUSION

The qui tam provisions of the FCA do not violate the Appointments Clause. Accordingly, the Eleventh Circuit vacated the district court’s order dismissing this case and remand for the district court to evaluate the defendants’ Take Care Clause and Vesting Clause arguments.

ZALMA OPINION

The False Claims Act is a serious weapon used against people defrauding units of the United States like Medicare, Medicaid, National Flood Insurance Program and Crop Insurance. From the inside they see the fraud and give the DOJ the right to join. Whatever the Relator obtains for the United States he or she gets a percentage. The fraudsters don’t like it and tried to argue that Dr. Clarissa Zafirov was a officer of the US and not able to bring her qui tam claim. The attempt failed because relators do not hold a continuing position sufficient to determine that relators are not officers and the action must continue.

(c) 2026 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.

Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.

Subscribe to my substack at https://gbarryzalma.substack.com/subscribe

Go to X @bzalma;  Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://Cwww.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg; Go to the InsuranceClaims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk.