context: The defendants use the terms "conditions of'payment" and "conditions of participation" to draw an 'unnecessarily sharp line betiveen different types of problematic behayior. Whatever label the defendants wish to apply to the conduct at issue, the relators have properly alleged an FCA violation if they have described deficient conduct that would have been material to.the government's decision to provide payment.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 461 F.3d 1166, 1176
citation_a.parenthetical: labeling the condition of participation versus condition of payment distinction nothing more than "a distinction without a difference"
citation_a.sentence: See Hendow v. Univ. of Phx., 461 F.3d 1166, 1176 (9th Cir.2006) (labeling the condition of participation versus condition of payment distinction nothing more than “a distinction without a difference”); see also United States ex rel. Miller v. Weston Educ., Inc., 784 F.3d 1198, 1207-08 (8th Cir.2015) (in a case arising in the fi'audulent inducement context, citing Hendow favorably and noting Hendow’s rejec tion of the distinction between conditions of participation and payment).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.identifier: 784 F.3d 1198, 1207-08
citation_b.parenthetical: in a case arising in the fi'audulent inducement context, citing Hendow favorably and noting Hendow's rejec tion of the distinction between conditions of participation and payment
citation_b.sentence: See Hendow v. Univ. of Phx., 461 F.3d 1166, 1176 (9th Cir.2006) (labeling the condition of participation versus condition of payment distinction nothing more than “a distinction without a difference”); see also United States ex rel. Miller v. Weston Educ., Inc., 784 F.3d 1198, 1207-08 (8th Cir.2015) (in a case arising in the fi'audulent inducement context, citing Hendow favorably and noting Hendow’s rejec tion of the distinction between conditions of participation and payment).