With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 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

A: 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
B: holding relator stated fca claim where defendants submitted annual cost reports that included a certification of compliance
C: holding no liability under false claims act unless certification prerequisite to payment
D: recognizing that injury is a prerequisite to liability
A.