{"id":5936,"date":"2022-10-05T22:04:42","date_gmt":"2022-10-05T22:04:42","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/?post_type=publications&p=5936"},"modified":"2025-11-24T16:46:46","modified_gmt":"2025-11-24T16:46:46","slug":"on-even-split-en-banc-fourth-circuit-affirms-fca-dismissal-based-on-objectively-reasonable-interpretation-defense","status":"publish","type":"publications","link":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/publications\/on-even-split-en-banc-fourth-circuit-affirms-fca-dismissal-based-on-objectively-reasonable-interpretation-defense\/","title":{"rendered":"On Even Split, En Banc Fourth Circuit Affirms FCA Dismissal Based on \u2018Objectively Reasonable Interpretation\u2019 Defense"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"Pharmacist<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Following rehearing en banc<\/em>, an evenly split fullFourth Circuit has affirmed the district court\u2019s dismissal of a qui tam <\/em>action based on the defendant\u2019s \u201cobjectively reasonable\u201d interpretation of ambiguous regulations\u2014the Safeco <\/em>defense. Though the Fourth Circuit panel\u2019s decision is now vacated, no circuit split exists on the question. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court is weighing a possible grant of cert in two similar Seventh Circuit cases.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

The Fourth Circuit\u2019s highly anticipated rehearing en banc <\/em>of United States ex rel. Sheldon v. Allergan Sales, LLC<\/em>[1]<\/a> has resulted in a tie\u2014and no substantive opinion from the court. In Sheldon<\/em>, the full Fourth Circuit took up the issue of whether a defendant\u2019s \u201cobjectively reasonable interpretation\u201d negated the intent element of a False Claims Act (FCA) claim. Because the full court was evenly split, it issued a per curiam decision affirming the district court\u2019s dismissal on that ground and vacating the earlier panel decision.[2]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

As discussed in earlier posts (including this one<\/a>, in advance of the rehearing en banc<\/em>), the \u201cobjectively reasonable\u201d test stems from the Supreme Court\u2019s interpretation of \u201creckless disregard\u201d under another statute. [3]<\/a> In Safeco<\/em>, the Supreme Court held that where there is more than one reasonable interpretation of a statute or regulation in light of relevant judicial and agency guidance, \u201ca defendant who merely adopts one such interpretation [cannot be treated] as a knowing or reckless violator.\u201d[4]<\/a>  Multiple circuit courts have applied Safeco <\/em>to the FCA, holding a defendant lacks the requisite intent when its interpretation of an ambiguous statute or regulation was \u201cobjectively reasonable\u201d\u2014and <\/em>no \u201cauthoritative guidance\u201d from a court of appeals or the relevant agency \u201cwarned [the defendant] away\u201d from that interpretation.[5]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Although the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the relators\u2019 bar have vigorously contested application of Safeco <\/em>to the FCA, courts considering the issue have been remarkably consistent in holding that the Safeco<\/em> test applies.[6]<\/a> But, the Fourth Circuit\u2019s decision to grant en banc<\/em> review and the highly contentious oral argument signals there may be a greater divide than was previously evident. In Sheldon<\/em>, questions from the full court suggested deep division among the judges as to whether the Safeco <\/em>defense permits defendants to escape liability merely by coming up with a plausible post hoc defense, and whether it in effect negates the \u201cknowing\u201d and \u201cwillful ignorance\u201d bases for scienter. And, the Supreme Court recently asked for the Solicitor General\u2019s views on the issue in connection with pending petitions for certiorari in two Seventh Circuit cases recognizing the defense: United States ex rel. Schutte v. SuperValu Inc.[7]<\/strong><\/a> <\/em>and United States ex rel. Proctor v. Safeway, Inc.<\/em>[8]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ultimately, there is no circuit split to resolve because no circuit has expressly rejected the application of Safeco<\/em> to the FCA. The petitioners in SuperValu<\/em> attempt to cobble together a purported split by citing cases pre-dating Safeco <\/em>and cases in which circuits have found the defense to be factually inapplicable. For example, they rely heavily on the Eleventh Circuit\u2019s holding in United States ex rel. Phalp v. Lincare Holdings, Inc.<\/em>,[9]<\/a> which some have read as rejecting Safeco<\/em>\u2019s availability as a defense to FCA scienter.[10]<\/a> However, what Phalp <\/em>(which did not mention Safeco<\/em>) actually declined to adopt was a rule permitting reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous statute, without more, to defeat scienter[11]<\/a>\u2014in effect, Safeco<\/em>\u2019s first prong alone. In a decision issued earlier this year, the Eleventh Circuit confirmed that Safeco<\/em> applies.[12]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

What is the outlook for the \u201cobjectively reasonable\u201d defense to FCA scienter? It\u2019s hard to say. Unless and until the Supreme Court grants cert, the law is relatively clear\u2014Safeco<\/em>\u2019s objective reasonableness test applies to the FCA. We will continue to watch the cert petitions to see whether the Supreme Court may step in to change that.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

[1]<\/a> 24 F.4th 340 (4th Cir. 2022), vacated by <\/em>No. 20-2330, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 26729 (4th Cir. Sept. 23, 2022) (per curiam).  The district court opinion affirmed by both the panel and the en banc <\/em>court was United States ex rel. Sheldon v. Forest Labs., LLC<\/em>, No. ELH-14-2535, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 249501 (D. Md. Nov. 5, 2020).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[2]<\/a> See Sheldon<\/em>, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 26729, at *1; cf. Compucredit Holdings Corp. v. Akanthos Capital Mgmt.<\/em>, 698 F.3d 1348, 1349 (11th Cir. 2012) (quoting United States v. Geders<\/em>, 585 F.2d 1303, 1306 (5th Cir. 1978) (en banc)) (holding that, where a \u201ccourt en banc is evenly divided,\u201d the district court judgment being appealed \u201cis affirmed by operation of law\u201d).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[3]<\/a> Safeco Ins. Co. of Am. v. Burr,<\/em> 551 U.S. 47 (2007).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[4]<\/a> Id.<\/em> at 70 n.20 (alteration added)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[5]<\/a> See<\/em>, e.g.<\/em> United States ex rel. Purcell v. MWI Corp.<\/em>, 807 F.3d 281, 288\u201389 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (quotation omitted) (alteration by D.C. Circuit). With Purcell<\/em>, the D.C. Circuit became the first court of appeals to apply the Safeco <\/em>defense in the FCA context.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[6]<\/a> See Sheldon<\/em>, 24 F.4th at 348 (\u201cIn adopting this standard, we join each and every circuit that has considered Safeco<\/em>\u2019s applicability to the FCA.\u201d). See also United States ex rel. Schutte v. SuperValu Inc.<\/em>, 9 F.4th 455, 465 (7th Cir. 2021); United States ex rel. Streck v. Allergan, Inc.<\/em>, 746 F. App\u2019x 101, 106 (3d Cir. 2018) (unpublished); United States ex rel. McGrath v. Microsemi Corp.<\/em>, 690 F. App\u2019x 551, 552 (9th Cir. 2017) (unpublished); United States ex rel. Donegan v. Anesthesia Assocs. of Kansas City, PC<\/em>, 833 F.3d 874, 879\u201380 (8th Cir. 2016); Purcell<\/em>, 807 F.3d at 284.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[7]<\/a> 9 F.4th 455.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[8]<\/a> 30 F.4th 649 (7th Cir. 2021).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[9]<\/a> See <\/em>Petition for a Writ of Certiorari at 14\u201315, 22, United States ex rel. Schutte v. SuperValu, Inc.<\/em>, No. 21-____ (2022).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[10]<\/a> See<\/em>, e.g.<\/em>, SuperValu<\/em>, 9 F.4th at 479\u201380 (Hamilton, J., dissenting) (citing Phalp<\/em>, 857 F.3d 1148, 1155 (11th Cir. 2017)).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[11]<\/a> S<\/em>ee Phalp<\/em>, 857 F.3d at 1155 (citing United States ex rel. Minn. Ass\u2019n of Nurse Anesthetists v. Allina Health Sys. Corp.<\/em>, 276 F.3d 1032, 1053\u201354 (8th Cir. 2002)) (scienter established where defendant knowingly disregards proper interpretation of an ambiguous regulation).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[12]<\/a> See United States ex rel.<\/em> Olhausen v. Arriva Med., LLC<\/em>, No. 21-10366, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 10989, at *4\u20136 (11th Cir. Apr. 22, 2022) (unpublished) (applying Safeco <\/em>and affirming dismissal because the defendant\u2019s \u201cobjectively reasonable conclusion . . . negates the scienter element\u201d).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Following rehearing en banc, an evenly split fullFourth Circuit has affirmed the district court\u2019s dismissal of a qui tam action based on the defendant\u2019s \u201cobjectively reasonable\u201d interpretation of ambiguous regulations\u2014the Safeco defense. Though the Fourth Circuit panel\u2019s decision is now vacated, no circuit split exists on the question. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court is weighing a\u2026<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8,"featured_media":0,"menu_order":0,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"tags":[],"publication-type":[8],"class_list":["post-5936","publications","type-publications","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","publication-type-articles"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\nOn Even Split, En Banc Fourth Circuit Affirms FCA Dismissal Based on \u2018Objectively Reasonable Interpretation\u2019 Defense - Dinsmore & Shohl<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"On Even Split, En Banc Fourth Circuit Affirms FCA Dismissal Based on \u2018Objectively Reasonable Interpretation\u2019 Defense Read insights and legal analysis from attorneys at Dinsmore & Shohl LLP.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/publications\/on-even-split-en-banc-fourth-circuit-affirms-fca-dismissal-based-on-objectively-reasonable-interpretation-defense\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"On Even Split, En Banc Fourth Circuit Affirms FCA Dismissal Based on \u2018Objectively Reasonable Interpretation\u2019 Defense\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"On Even Split, En Banc Fourth Circuit Affirms FCA Dismissal Based on \u2018Objectively Reasonable Interpretation\u2019 Defense Read insights and legal analysis from attorneys at Dinsmore & Shohl LLP.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/publications\/on-even-split-en-banc-fourth-circuit-affirms-fca-dismissal-based-on-objectively-reasonable-interpretation-defense\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Dinsmore & Shohl\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2025-11-24T16:46:46+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/DINS_Legal-Alert_Social_Header-07.png\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"5 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/publications\/on-even-split-en-banc-fourth-circuit-affirms-fca-dismissal-based-on-objectively-reasonable-interpretation-defense\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/publications\/on-even-split-en-banc-fourth-circuit-affirms-fca-dismissal-based-on-objectively-reasonable-interpretation-defense\/\",\"name\":\"On Even Split, En Banc Fourth Circuit Affirms FCA Dismissal Based on \u2018Objectively Reasonable Interpretation\u2019 Defense - Dinsmore & Shohl\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/publications\/on-even-split-en-banc-fourth-circuit-affirms-fca-dismissal-based-on-objectively-reasonable-interpretation-defense\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/publications\/on-even-split-en-banc-fourth-circuit-affirms-fca-dismissal-based-on-objectively-reasonable-interpretation-defense\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/DINS_Legal-Alert_Social_Header-07.png\",\"datePublished\":\"2022-10-05T22:04:42+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2025-11-24T16:46:46+00:00\",\"description\":\"On Even Split, En Banc Fourth Circuit Affirms FCA Dismissal Based on \u2018Objectively Reasonable Interpretation\u2019 Defense Read insights and legal analysis from attorneys at Dinsmore & Shohl LLP.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/publications\/on-even-split-en-banc-fourth-circuit-affirms-fca-dismissal-based-on-objectively-reasonable-interpretation-defense\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/publications\/on-even-split-en-banc-fourth-circuit-affirms-fca-dismissal-based-on-objectively-reasonable-interpretation-defense\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/publications\/on-even-split-en-banc-fourth-circuit-affirms-fca-dismissal-based-on-objectively-reasonable-interpretation-defense\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/DINS_Legal-Alert_Social_Header-07.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/DINS_Legal-Alert_Social_Header-07.png\",\"width\":1200,\"height\":432},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/publications\/on-even-split-en-banc-fourth-circuit-affirms-fca-dismissal-based-on-objectively-reasonable-interpretation-defense\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"On Even Split, En Banc Fourth Circuit Affirms FCA Dismissal Based on \u2018Objectively Reasonable Interpretation\u2019 Defense\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/\",\"name\":\"Dinsmore & Shohl\",\"description\":\"\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Dinsmore & Shohl\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/Dinsmore-Final-Logo-Navy.svg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/Dinsmore-Final-Logo-Navy.svg\",\"width\":413,\"height\":54,\"caption\":\"Dinsmore & Shohl\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"}}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"On Even Split, En Banc Fourth Circuit Affirms FCA Dismissal Based on \u2018Objectively Reasonable Interpretation\u2019 Defense - Dinsmore & Shohl","description":"On Even Split, En Banc Fourth Circuit Affirms FCA Dismissal Based on \u2018Objectively Reasonable Interpretation\u2019 Defense Read insights and legal analysis from attorneys at Dinsmore & Shohl LLP.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/publications\/on-even-split-en-banc-fourth-circuit-affirms-fca-dismissal-based-on-objectively-reasonable-interpretation-defense\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"On Even Split, En Banc Fourth Circuit Affirms FCA Dismissal Based on \u2018Objectively Reasonable Interpretation\u2019 Defense","og_description":"On Even Split, En Banc Fourth Circuit Affirms FCA Dismissal Based on \u2018Objectively Reasonable Interpretation\u2019 Defense Read insights and legal analysis from attorneys at Dinsmore & Shohl LLP.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/publications\/on-even-split-en-banc-fourth-circuit-affirms-fca-dismissal-based-on-objectively-reasonable-interpretation-defense\/","og_site_name":"Dinsmore & Shohl","article_modified_time":"2025-11-24T16:46:46+00:00","og_image":[{"url":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/DINS_Legal-Alert_Social_Header-07.png","type":"","width":"","height":""}],"twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Est. reading time":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/publications\/on-even-split-en-banc-fourth-circuit-affirms-fca-dismissal-based-on-objectively-reasonable-interpretation-defense\/","url":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/publications\/on-even-split-en-banc-fourth-circuit-affirms-fca-dismissal-based-on-objectively-reasonable-interpretation-defense\/","name":"On Even Split, En Banc Fourth Circuit Affirms FCA Dismissal Based on \u2018Objectively Reasonable Interpretation\u2019 Defense - Dinsmore & Shohl","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/publications\/on-even-split-en-banc-fourth-circuit-affirms-fca-dismissal-based-on-objectively-reasonable-interpretation-defense\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/publications\/on-even-split-en-banc-fourth-circuit-affirms-fca-dismissal-based-on-objectively-reasonable-interpretation-defense\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/DINS_Legal-Alert_Social_Header-07.png","datePublished":"2022-10-05T22:04:42+00:00","dateModified":"2025-11-24T16:46:46+00:00","description":"On Even Split, En Banc Fourth Circuit Affirms FCA Dismissal Based on \u2018Objectively Reasonable Interpretation\u2019 Defense Read insights and legal analysis from attorneys at Dinsmore & Shohl LLP.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/publications\/on-even-split-en-banc-fourth-circuit-affirms-fca-dismissal-based-on-objectively-reasonable-interpretation-defense\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/publications\/on-even-split-en-banc-fourth-circuit-affirms-fca-dismissal-based-on-objectively-reasonable-interpretation-defense\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/publications\/on-even-split-en-banc-fourth-circuit-affirms-fca-dismissal-based-on-objectively-reasonable-interpretation-defense\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/DINS_Legal-Alert_Social_Header-07.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/DINS_Legal-Alert_Social_Header-07.png","width":1200,"height":432},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/publications\/on-even-split-en-banc-fourth-circuit-affirms-fca-dismissal-based-on-objectively-reasonable-interpretation-defense\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"On Even Split, En Banc Fourth Circuit Affirms FCA Dismissal Based on \u2018Objectively Reasonable Interpretation\u2019 Defense"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/","name":"Dinsmore & Shohl","description":"","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/#organization","name":"Dinsmore & Shohl","url":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/Dinsmore-Final-Logo-Navy.svg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/Dinsmore-Final-Logo-Navy.svg","width":413,"height":54,"caption":"Dinsmore & Shohl"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"}}]}},"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/publications\/5936","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/publications"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/publications"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/8"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/publications\/5936\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":61895,"href":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/publications\/5936\/revisions\/61895"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5936"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5936"},{"taxonomy":"publication-type","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/publication-type?post=5936"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}