Statistical sampling and extrapolation are routinely accepted as evidence to estimate damages, and established methodologies to design and implement valid sampling studies are well-known.  Yet the role and propriety of a given analysis in litigation continues to be hotly contested. The reasonableness of an extrapolated loss calculation was a significant sentencing issue in United States v. Solomon Melgen, Case No. 9:15-cr-80049, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida … extrapolating losses in healthcare fraud sentencing

Courts have generally accepted statistical sampling and extrapolation as evidence to estimate damages.[i] However, the use of sampling for purposes of establishing liability in False Claims Act (“FCA”) litigation is an issue of conflict between those prosecuting FCA claims and those defending such claims. In the decision in United States ex rel. Martin v. Life Care Centers of America, Inc., the Eastern District of Tennessee found sampling and extrapolation appropriate for the Government’s use in attempting to establish the elements of FCA liability.[ii] While that case settled for $145 million in 2016, this post offers an overview of the case, along with a summary of the Court’s decision and a discussion of its implications…