1. Whether the implied certification theory of
liability under the False Claims Act is viable,
and if so, whether it requires that the
Defendant(s) comply with a specific legal
requirement that is material to the
government 's payment decision.

2. Whether the First Circuit erred in applying
the materiality standard for implied
certification claims in this case.

3. Whether the lower court 's interpretation and
application of the implied certification theory
of False Claims Act (FCA) liability is
consistent with the Supreme Court 's decision
in Universal Health Services, Inc. v. United States ex rel. Escobar.

4. Whether the lower court 's decision conflicts
with other circuit courts ' interpretation and
application of the implied certification theory
of FCA liability.

5. Whether the lower court 's decision undermines
the materiality standard set forth in Escobar
by allowing FCA claims based on immaterial
or minor violations.

6. Whether the lower court 's decision improperly
expands the scope of FCA liability by allowing
plaintiffs to bring claims based on implied or
unspoken requirements that are not expressly
designated as conditions of payment.

7. Whether the lower court 's decision creates
uncertainty and unpredictability in FCA
litigation by allowing plaintiffs to bring claims
based on a broad range of contractual or
regulatory violations.

8. Whether the lower court 's decision violates the
principles of fair notice and due process by
allowing FCA liability based on unclear or
ambiguous provisions.

9. Whether the lower court 's decision conflicts
with the Supreme Court 's precedent on
statutory interpretation and the role of agency
guidance in determining FCA liability.

10. Whether the lower court 's decision improperly
shifts the burden of proof in FCA cases by
requiring Defendant(s) to disprove materiality
rather than requiring plaintiffs to prove it.

11. Whether the lower court 's decision undermines
the government 's ability to negotiate and
enforce contracts with private parties by
allowing FCA claims based on technical or
minor violations.

12. Whether the lower court 's decision conflicts
with the policy goals of the FCA and the need
to balance the interests of the government and
private parties in contract negotiations and
performance.

13. Whether multiple diagnostic evaluation and
treatment encounter are considered by
Horizon 's relator Scott Johnson are Fraud contractual regulatory or without considering the American Medical
Association which is the authority of CPT
Codes and ICD-9(ICD-10) codes and the billing
services which has been verified (AAPC and
AMA Reports).

14. Whether the Americans with Disability Act
focus is to prepare the patient with Disabilities
for Employment and Independent living, as
well as, the New Jersey Mandate for Autism
and Other Neurodevelopmental Disabilities
emphasis is through frequent evaluative and
treatment criteria to prepare the above
patients with Autism and Other
Developmental Disabilities for independent
living and self-sufficient employment.

Whether the implied certification theory of liability under the False Claims Act is viable