Two Laws That Work Well Together – The False Claims Act (FCA) and the Wartime Suspension of Limitations Act (WSLA)

by Brian J. Markovitz
August 21st, 2013

The False Claims Act (FCA), originally conceived by Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War, has been an effective tool for the Government to recover funds fraudulently taken from all types of government programs from national security to Medicare for over a century and a half.  But like all statutes, the FCA has its limitations, including time.  Until recently, it was believed that with little exception fraudulently taken taxpayer funds could be recovered only for a period of six years prior to the filing of a complaint.  31 U.S.C. § 3731(b).

Enter into the FCA arena a little used or known law from the 1940s, the Wartime Suspension of Limitations Act (the “WSLA”). The WSLA tolls the statute of limitations in cases of fraud committed during wartime against the Government “until five years after the termination of hostilities as proclaimed by the President or by a concurrent resolution of Congress.” 18 U.S.C. § 3287.  Several courts, including the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, have held that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan triggered the WSLA such that FCA claims have been tolled since 2001.[i]  Additionally, there does not appear to be limitations to the type of FCA fraud at issue.  As one Court held in June, the WSLA is not limited to “war frauds”, i.e. “frauds related to the administration of the war” but applies to all types of FCA cases, including fraud against medical programs like Medicare and Medicaid.[ii]

The application of the WSLA to FCA cases is undergoing an evolutionary process, and courts have much more work to do on the proper application of the WSLA to the FCA’s statute of limitations as litigants test its limits.  At the very least, these recent decisions demonstrate that claims long thought to have been extinct can be potentially resurrected and that existing FCA claims can reach fraud that occurred twelve years ago in some cases.


[i] U.S. ex rel. Carter v. Halliburton Co., 710 F.3d 171, 181 (4th Cir. 2013) (“The WSLA tolls the applicable period for a specified and bounded time while the country is at war”); U.S. v. BNP Paribas SA et al., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110293, at *16-17 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 6, 2012) (applying the Wartime Suspension of Limitations Act (“WLSA”) as amended by the Wartime Enforcement of Fraud Act of 2008, 18 U.S.C. § 3287, to suspend the statute of limitations for FCA cases, finding that the U.S. was at war in 2005, and that the wars had not yet ended); see also U.S. v. Temple, 147 F. Supp. 118, 121 (D. Ill. 1956) (“[C]ourts which have considered the question have unanimously held that the [WLSA] tolled the limitations section of the [FCA]”).

[ii] See U.S. ex rel. Paulos v. Stryker Corp., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82294, at *51-52 (W.D. Mo. June 12, 2013).

Brian Markovitz is a principal in the firm’s Labor and Employment and Civil Litigation practice groups who focuses primarily on helping victims who have suffered severe injustice in the workplace. He represents individuals throughout Maryland, the Washington D.C. area and across the country in complex employment litigation and appellate matters involving wrongful termination, retaliation by employers in response to reporting fraud or misconduct and discrimination on the basis of race, gender, age and sexual orientation. 

Contact Brian Markovitz

The use of the Internet or this form for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be sent through this form.

Disclaimer

The JGL Law Blog is made available by the Firm and/or the law firm publisher for educational purposes only as well as to give you general information and a general understanding of the law. The JGL Law Blog is not designed to and does not provide specific legal advice. Use of, or comments on, this Blog does not create an Attorney Client Relationship with the Firm or any of the authors of the Blog Posts.

This blog is for general informational purposes only. Joseph, Greenwald & Laake, PA is a law firm and some of the information on the blog relates to legal topics. Joseph, Greenwald & Laake, PA does not offer or dispense legal advice through this blog or by e-mails directed to or from this site. By using the blog, the reader agrees that the information on this blog does not constitute legal or other professional advice and no attorney-client or other relationship is created between the reader and Joseph, Greenwald & Laake, PA or its attorneys. The blog is not a substitute for obtaining legal advice from a qualified attorney licensed in your state. The information on the blog may be changed without notice and is not guaranteed to be complete, correct or up-to-date. While the blog is revised on a regular basis, it may not reflect the most current legal developments. The opinions expressed at or through the blog are the opinions of the individual author and may not reflect the opinions of the firm or any individual attorney. The JGL Law Blog should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed professional attorney in your state.

To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the U.S. Internal Revenue Service in Circular 230, we inform you that any tax advice contained on this site (including any links provided) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the U.S. Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing, or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed in this communication.

˅