In 2026, several federal cases are poised to shape regulatory risk, reimbursement, and False Claims Act exposure, as well as innovation pathways across the health care and life sciences sectors. These include cases decided in 2024 and 2025 that continue to have ongoing impacts, as well as more recent cases involving cutting-edge technology. This article highlights five cases to monitor (or their progeny), why these cases matter to in-house legal teams, and practical steps for health care and life sciences general counsel (GC) to consider.

• State Attorneys General (AGs) Are Stepping Up: With reduced federal enforcement staffing, state AGs are expanding their budgets, hiring former federal prosecutors, and taking the lead in health care fraud investigations.
• Medicaid Takes Center Stage: As federal enforcement focuses on Medicare, state Medicaid Fraud Control Units are prioritizing Medicaid fraud, creating a shift in enforcement focus and risk profiles for health care companies.
• Proactive Compliance Is Critical: Companies must prioritize internal complaint management, monitor their external reputation, and engage experienced local counsel to navigate the complexities of state and federal enforcement.

In this episode of Speaking of Litigation, Epstein Becker Green attorneys Zachary Taylor, Sarah Hall, and Jeremy Avila discuss the implications for general counsel regarding the expansion of state-level health care enforcement and explore how companies can proactively manage risk in this evolving environment.

At that time, we cautioned that attorney affirmations relying on the traditional “under the penalty of perjury” language could be deemed defective under the amended statute, which now requires revised language that the statements are affirmed, among other things, “under the penalties of perjury under the laws of New York, which may include a fine or imprisonment.” Since then, as anticipated, courts have begun to strictly enforce the revised requirements, with several rejecting affirmations that fail to incorporate the updated statutory verbiage. However, recent decisions suggest that—at least in some circumstances—such defects may be curable.

Discover how their military experiences shaped their leadership, resilience, and approach to the practice of law. This episode also celebrates the service of the broader Epstein Becker Green community, including employees and their families.

In this episode of Speaking of Litigation, we analyze iconic scenes from Succession, The Good Wife, Bridge of Spies, and more to uncover the truths—and myths—about the legal process.

Join Epstein Becker Green attorneys Sierra Hennessy, Aime Dempsey, and Adam Paine as they separate Hollywood fiction from legal reality, offering practical insights for anyone navigating the litigation process.

But as this episode of Speaking of Litigation reveals, signing on the dotted line may be just the beginning.

Avoid post-closing litigation with these issues in focus:

• Earnout Disputes: Learn how a buyer’s actions can intentionally or unintentionally depress earnings, leading to legal battles over unpaid contingent payments.
• Indemnification Risks: Understand why a buyer’s “safety net” can become a legal landmine for sellers, especially when ambiguous deal language is involved.
• Regulatory Surprises: Discover the unforeseen challenges that arise when government investigations begin after a deal closes, forcing buyers and sellers to confront liability for past conduct.

Epstein Becker Green attorneys Jim Flynn, Bob Travisano, and Daniella Lee discuss how to spot the red flags in a deal, the main legal triggers of post-merger disputes, and, most importantly, how to protect your business—whether you’re the buyer or the seller.

The June 1, 2025 Amendment Drastically Reduces the Damages Cap

On April 22, 2025,  Governor Moore signed an Amendment to the CVA that reduced damages for public and private defendants.  The Amendment, which took effect on June 1, 2025, lowers the cap on noneconomic damages for CVA cases filed on or after June 1, 2025 in the following ways:

Why It Matters

• Setting the Tone Early: Find out how pre-litigation discovery builds compelling, evidence-backed cases.

• Controlling the Narrative: Learn how preemptive filings can influence not only legal outcomes but also public opinion.

• Detailed Insights on Strategy: Gain valuable advice on making critical first moves that can define the trajectory of your case.

Don’t miss Epstein Becker Green attorneys Sierra Hennessy, David Clark, and Alex Barnard as they explore the benefits, risks, and nuances of these advanced legal strategies.

This episode of Speaking of Litigation is packed with actionable insights for general counsel and legal professionals navigating complex litigation and provides real-time examples from high-profile disputes, including Blake Lively’s and Justin Baldoni’s cases.

In particular, Rule 11-e(d) provides as follows:

(d) [b]y agreement of the parties to a date no later than one (1) month prior to the close of fact discovery, or at such time set by the Court, the responding party shall state, for each individual request: (i) whether the production of documents in its possession, custody or control and that are responsive to the individual request, as propounded or modified, is complete; or (ii) that there are no documents in its possession, custody or control that are responsive to the individual request as propounded or modified.

Consumer protection laws can be tempting causes of action for individuals who believe they have been wronged by the healthcare system. Unlike medical malpractice claims, which require expert testimony and may include damages caps, consumer protection statutes often include treble damages, punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees. Consumer protection laws may also offer injunctive relief as a remedy, do not require a plaintiff to prove causation or damages, and have the potential for class action lawsuits. To prevent plaintiffs from reframing a negligence case to sidestep the limitations of medical malpractice cases, some courts and states have drawn boundaries between consumer protection and medical malpractice cases.

A recent ruling from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is raising the stakes for any business that operates a website collecting user data. In Briskin v. Shopify, decided in April 2025, the court held that California courts can exercise personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state company—Shopify—for allegedly collecting personal data from a California resident without proper disclosure or consent. This decision signals a significant shift in how courts view digital jurisdiction in the age of online commerce and widespread data collection.

While the State Supreme Court has not yet offered conclusive guidance, decisions by the State’s various appellate courts offer insight into what factors a court is likely to consider.

As we have noted before, the holding in Epic Systems v. Lewis contributed to a proliferation of arbitration agreements with class and collective action waivers. Our prior analysis predicted certain datapoints one should ...

In Part Two of this series, we address the DOJ’s changes made the same day to its Corporate Enforcement and Voluntary Disclosure Policy (“the CEP”), contained within the Justice Manual. The revised CEP provides additional benefits to companies that self-disclose and cooperate. In his May 12^th speech, Galeotti asserted that prior versions of the CEP were “unwieldy and hard to navigate” and noted that the DOJ seeks to be “as transparent as [it] can to companies and their counsel about what to expect under [DOJ’s] policies.” As part of this effort to increase transparency, the revised CEP includes a flowchart of potential outcomes should a company decide to make a voluntary self-disclosure as well as definitions of key terms such as “Voluntary Self-Disclosure,” “Full Cooperation,” “Timely and Appropriate Remediation” and “Providing Cooperation Credit.”

Join Epstein Becker Green attorneys Alkida Kacani and Christopher Farella as they sit down with Jonathan Murphy, Senior Manager of Forensics at BDO, to examine how AI is revolutionizing the practice of law.

Discover how advanced technologies are refining e-discovery, optimizing predictive analytics, and transforming document review processes. The discussion also takes a deep look into the ethical considerations of integrating AI into legal work, from safeguarding sensitive information to maintaining professional standards in a highly dynamic field.

1. Focus on High-Impact Waste, Fraud, and Abuse Harming Vulnerable Taxpayers

It should be no surprise that the administration is targeting actors that profit through “waste, fraud, and abuse.” The memo sets clear priorities for its prosecutors to investigate, listing as the #1 priority health care fraud and federal program and procurement fraud.  The memo goes on to provide a top 10 list of “high-impact areas”, with “trade and customs fraud, including tariff evasion” as #2.  Heavy focus is given to fraud perpetrated by foreign actors and conduct threatening U.S. national security. Also listed is fraud victimizing U.S. investors, including elder fraud and Ponzi schemes. Appearing as #8 on the list is violations of the Controlled Substances Act and the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, including the creation of counterfeit pills laced with fentanyl and the “unlawful distribution of opioids by medical professionals and companies.”

In Chi Bartram Wright v. State of New York, the plaintiff alleged that between 1986 and 1990, when he was twelve to fifteen years old, he was repeatedly sexually assaulted by various men at a state-owned performance arts facility located in Albany, New York. The complaint filed in the Court of Claims failed to identify any of the men who allegedly assaulted plaintiff, the specific months and dates of the alleged assaults, why plaintiff was in the company of the alleged abusers multiple times over a four year period, or what repeatedly brought plaintiff to the performance arts facility. Instead, the complaint generally alleged that during the alleged time period, plaintiff was assaulted by various State employees and members of the general public while on the state-owned premises. Plaintiff sought over $75 million in damages based on various negligence-based causes of action, including negligent hiring, retention, direction, and supervision.