Universal Health Services, Inc. v. United States ex rel. Escobar
2016 United States Supreme Court case
Universal Health Services, Inc. v. United States ex rel. Escobar, 579 U.S. ___ (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that "the implied false certification theory can be a basis for False Claims Act liability when a defendant submitting a claim makes specific representations about the goods or services provided, but fails to disclose noncompliance with material statutory, regulatory, or contractual requirements that make those representations misleading with respect to those goods or services."
Opinion of the Court
Associate Justice Clarence Thomas authored a unanimous opinion.
References
External links
Text of Universal Health Services, Inc. v. United States ex rel. Escobar, 579 U.S. ___ (2016) is available from: Internet Archive (docket files) Oyez (oral argument audio) Supreme Court (slip opinion) (archived)
SCOTUSblog coverage
This article incorporates written opinion of a United States federal court. As a work of the U.S. federal government, the text is in the public domain.
Begin with the source’s own compact description: “Universal Health Services, Inc. v. United States ex rel. Escobar” is 2016 United States Supreme Court case. The dossier treats that line as a proposition to test through Universal, Health and Services, not as a finished interpretation.
Why this record matters
The phrase “2016 United States Supreme Court case” supplies a clear boundary for inquiry. It also exposes the unanswered questions: who defined that boundary, when it became stable and which sources sit outside it.
Vocabulary and entity names are the principal evidence signals here, because they determine the precision of every later search. The source revision retrieved here is dated May 1, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q24895548. The first chronological checks are 2016.
A concise general-reference account can conceal disagreements about scope, terminology or the weight assigned to individual sources. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Universal Health Services, Inc. v. United States ex rel. Escobar”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Universal Health Services, Inc. v. United States ex rel. Escobar primary sources, Universal Health Services, Inc. v. United States ex rel. Escobar archive and Universal research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Universal Health Services, Inc. v. United States ex rel. Escobar”?
- What terminology or title could unlock a more precise catalogue search?
- Which cited source is closest to the event, object or claim?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Universal Health Services, Inc. v. United States ex rel. Escobar” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.