United States ex rel. Polansky v. Executive Health Resources, Inc.

Relator Dr. Jesse Polansky filed a qui tam action under the False Claims Act against his former employer, Executive Health Resources, Inc., alleging that the company enabled hospitals to overbill Medicare. The United States initially declined to intervene but later moved to dismiss the case entirely, despite Polansky's objections. The District Court granted the dismissal, and the Third Circuit affirmed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a circuit split on the government’s authority to dismiss such suits. In an 8-1 decision, the Court held that the government may seek dismissal of a qui tam action over a relator’s objection at any time, provided it has intervened, and such a motion is governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a).

The Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts, ruling 8-1 that the government can dismiss a qui tam action over a relator’s objection as long as it has intervened, and that such dismissal is governed by the generally applicable standards of Rule 41(a). The Court rejected arguments for heightened scrutiny of the government's motion.

The central dispute focused on whether the government retains the authority to dismiss a False Claims Act qui tam lawsuit after initially declining to intervene, and what standard courts should apply when reviewing such a dismissal motion. The case examined the constitutionality of the relator’s role and the balance of power between private whistleblowers and the executive branch.

The decision significantly strengthened the government’s control over False Claims Act litigation, limiting the power of private relators to pursue cases the executive branch deems unmeritorious. It resolved a deep circuit split, providing uniform procedures for dismissing qui tam suits. Critics argue it may deter whistleblowers, while proponents emphasize it prevents parasitic lawsuits and protects prosecutorial discretion.