By denying the request, the Supreme Court allowed the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision to be upheld, which says that “remuneration” for purposes of the statute only covers payments and other transfers of value and is not broad enough to cover any act that may be valuable to another.
The circuit court case questioned whether a hospital’s decision not to hire an ophthalmologist in return for a general commitment of continued surgery referrals from another ophthalmologist fell under the anti-kickback rule.
In a petition request for the Supreme Court to hear the case, the 6th Circuit was said to have narrowly construed the term “remuneration” to be limited to either a payment or a change to the value of a service.
The Supreme Court, through denial of the case, chose not to define the meaning of “remuneration” for anti-kickback and false claims purposes and left a split among circuit courts on the matter unresolved.
