In a False Claims Act case against a wheelchair supplier for violating the 30-day rule, the question of whether the defendant's failure to comply with the 30-day requirement was a material violation depends on the definition of materiality. The FCA defines materiality as having a natural tendency to influence or be capable of influencing, the payment or receipt of money or property (False Claims Act, 1982). With the information shared, I would agree that the defendant's failure to comply was a material violation.

The 30-day requirement is an important safeguard against fraud. The fact that the government brought forth a False Claims case against the wheelchair supplier suggests that it considers the violation to be material. The government had not sought repayment in the past but placed the defendant on prepayment review. This may have been an attempt to allow the company to fix its errors and comply with the rule. As they have not changed practice to align with the 30-day rule, it seems as though they are being reckless in the way that they are practicing suggesting the violation is material.

The 30-day requirement explicitly stated that it was included to prevent fraud. A failure to comply with the requirement could lead to the payment of claims and is likely to be considered material under the FCA as the defendant received payments that the government would not have otherwise paid. Another consideration is the defendant's intent. It is more likely to be considered material if the defendant acted intentionally or recklessly in violating the requirement. The example is not clear if there was intent, however, it has been repeated occurrences that may lead to an indication of some level of intent or recklessness. This is considered material as the defendant showed deliberate indifference to the truth and willingness to continue submitting false information to the government.

AGREE OR DISAGREE? DEBATE