violation of the Medicare anti-kickback statutes necessarily constitutes a false claim. While we noted that a claim is not necessarily “false” simply because it involves a statutory violation, we indicated that a claim is necessarily false when it involves a knowingly false certification of compliance with a statute or regulation and that certification is a prerequisite to payment of the asserted claim. See Thompson, 125 F.3d at 902 (“[W]here the government has conditioned payment of a claim upon a claimant’s certification of compliance with, for example, a statute or regulation, a claimant submits a false or fraudulent claim when he or she falsely certifies compliance with that statute or regulation.”); see also United States ex rel. Hopper v. Anton, 91 F.3d 1261, 1266 (9th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>) (emphasis in original). We ultimately remanded
holding relator stated fca claim where defendants submitted annual cost reports that included a certification of compliance holding no liability under false claims act unless certification prerequisite to payment recognizing that injury is a prerequisite to liability holding that these regulatory violations do not give rise to a viable fca action recognizing that while not all breaches of contract or regulatory violations automatically give rise to liability under the fca the false certification of compliance  creates liability when certification is a prerequisite to obtaining a government benefit