AAJ will hold a “Qui Tam” Teleseminar on December 6, 2011 at 2:00 pm EST. With recently amended whistleblower laws and several high profile settlements, lawyers need to understand the procedural complexities and pitfalls in qui tam whistleblower cases. Cosponsored by the Qui Tam Litigation Group of AAJ, this teleseminar will provide an understanding this rapidly developing area of law.

View the agenda, faculty and register at www.justice.org/quitam. Use the promotion code QUITAM at online checkout to receive the special rate of $159.

The post Qui Tam Whistleblower Cases Under False Claims Act Explained appeared first on Whistleblower Lawyer Blog.

The DOJ statistics below show that these declined cases have generated more than $97 million in recoveries for taxpayers since 1987, the year after the modern False Claims Act was born.

These facts dispel any notion that the Justice Department has sufficient resources to pursue all meritorious cases. Some of the more notable False Claims Act recoveries were achieved by private attorneys pursuing these “declined” cases.

A list of these declined cases that have brought almost $100 million into the U.S. Treasury is below. This amount is “larger than the sum of all salaries paid to members of the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate last year,” as observed by Pat Burns of Taxpayers Against Fraud.

Qui Tam Declined Unsealed Cases with Litigation Status “Final Settlement by U.S.” or “Final Settlement/Judgment for U.S.”

Caption Settlement/ Judgment
US ex rel Hicks, Donald v Chrysler Corp D/B/A Pentastar Electronics; Pei Acquisition Corp Inc et al Settlement US Ex Rel Powell, Teri S v Paragon Hlth Network Inc DBA Fairview Nursing Home et al Settlement US ex rel Simon, Jack v Daimler-Chrysler Corp; Chrysler Technologies Corp et al Settlement US ex rel Lockhart, Tommie v Preyer, Prince Jr; Madison County Commission; Jarrett, Alfred et al Settlement US ex rel Tou Yang Lee; See yang Lee; V’asia Eric Xiong et al v Chambers Bank et al Settlement US Ex Rel Willis, Donald B v Aydin Corp/Aydin Corp (West) Settlement US Ex Rel DE LA Serna, Pedro v Pacific Steel Casting Comp Settlement US ex rel Ericson, Sandra v City College of San Francisco; Tsang, Chui; San Francisco Commun et al Settlement US ex rel Bhatnagar, Ashok v Kiewit Pac Corp; St of CA Dept of Trans; Does 1 Thru 100 Settlement US ex rel Wilson, Richard; Maranto, Chris v Maxxam Inc; Pacific Lumber Co et al Settlement US ex rel McKenzie, Marilou; Swan, Ila v Crestwood Hosps Inc; West Coast Cambridge Inc et al Settlement US ex rel Foundation Aiding the Elderly; Baker, Marsha J v Horizon West Inc et al Settlement US ex rel Hendow, Mary; Albertson, Julie v University of Phoenix; Does 1-500 Settlement US ex rel Burns, Sara (Newsome) Ra v Family Practice of San Diego; Flam, Seth M Settlement US Ex Rel Burroughs, George v Denardi Corp et al; Denardi Equipment Corp; Denardi, Harold M et al Settlement US ex rel Pack & Crate Services Inc v Allstate Van & Storage Inc; Inter-World Forwarders Inc Settlement US Ex Rel Sylvester, Thomas; McGough, Thomas et al v Covington Techs Comp et al Judgment US Ex Rel Sylvester, Thomas; McGough, Thomas et al v Covington Techs Comp et al Settlement US Ex Rel Taxpayers Against Fraud; Killingsworth, Max v Northrop Corp Settlement US ex rel Gibeault, Roland; Maudal, Inge v TX Instruments Corp; PSI Tronix Inc et al Settlement US Ex Rel Breene, Frank M v Trw Inc Settlement US Ex Rel Rullo, Gary G v Fed Express Corp Settlement US Ex Rel Hernandez, Ben v. Mc Donnell Douglas Helicopeter Comp Settlement US ex rel Oliver, Janet C v Parsons Comp; Parsons Engineering Science Inc et al Settlement US Ex Rel Gabrielli, Michael P; Chavez, Jose R v Pjc Techs Inc; Speedy Circuits Inc Settlement US Ex Rel Buffington, Gary L v Shea-Kiewit-Kenny et al Settlement US ex rel Ali, A Amir v CA St Univ Northridge et al Settlement US ex rel Lee, Insoon v Smithkline Beecham Inc; Does 1-100 Settlement US ex rel Downer, Grace G v Tenet Hlth Care Corp; Garfield Medical Ctr; Kwan, Stephen K Dr Settlement US ex rel Benz, William R v Primecare Intn1 Inc; Reddy, Prem; Does 1-50 Judgment US ex rel Anthony, Charles; State of CA; State of NV v Burke Engineering Co; Burke, Timothy et al Settlement US; State of California ex rel Sialic Contractors Corp D/B/A Shawnan v Sequel Contractors Inc et al Settlement US ex rel Sialic Contractors Corp D/B/A Shawnan v Pack, Thomas; Magallanes, Abel et al Settlement US ex rel Gomez, Maria L v Barhoum, Elias; Malouf, James A/K/A Maloof, James et al Settlement US; State of California ex rel Fletcher, John Bryan v Catholic Healthcare West et al Settlement US ex rel Cericola, Karen v FNMA A/K/A Fannie Mae; Envoy Capital Corp; Aldridge, Arthur Judgment US ex rel Kenner, Gary A v St Joseph’s Hosp Corp D/B/A Unimed Medical Center et al Settlement US Ex Rel Wright, Ross v Cleo Wallace Ctrs; Cleo Wallace Fnd; Cole, James M Chief Exec Officer et al Settlement US ex rel St of Co et al v Lutheran Hosp Assn 0/Tsan Luis Valley DBA San Luis Valley Reg Medical Ctr Settlement US ex rel Maxwell, Bobby L v Kerr-McGee Chemical Worldwide LLC F/K/A Kerr-McGee Operating Corp et al Judgment US Ex Rel Gih-Horng Chen v Zygo Corp Judgment US ex rel Winters, Philip v CT Public Television; CT Public Broadcasting Inc; Collins, Donna et al Settlement US ex rel Bonci, David P v Baran, Bradley R; Perkins, Linda; Baran Institute of Tech Inc Settlement US ex rel Coleman, Shanay v Hernandez, Giglia M Judgment US ex rel Ervin & Assocs Inc v Hamilton Securities Group Inc et al Settlement US ex rel McCoskrie, Marsha S v Johns Hopkins Univ AkA Johns Hopkins Univ Ctr for Communication Prog Settlement US ex rel Allen, Michael M v Beta Construction Co; Hampton Supply Inc; Peter Gordon Co et al Settlement US ex rel Bohling, Timothy v Peter Kiewit Sons’ Inc Settlement US Ex Rel Falsetti, Frank; D’Alessio, Nancy v Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Comp Settlement US ex rel Lachance, Gerald v Primecare of Northwest Florida Inc Settlement US Ex Rel Loental, Nancy; Robinson, Felisa v Dist Bd of Trustees of Seminole Commun College Settlement US ex rel Young, Alina v Mobile Dental Health Inc; Berry, Allan; Soldatos, Constantin Nicholas et al Settlement US ex rel Sprys, Richard W; State of FL v Winn Dixie Stores Inc A/K/A Winn Dixie Pharmacies et al Settlement US ex rel Dimartino, Carmen v Technology Data Corp; Intelligent Decisions Inc Settlement US ex rel Denk, Karyn L v Leesburg Family Medicine PA Settlement
US ex rel Maile NA Kane DO; Jenkins, Margaret; Nelson, Stuart v Quality Medical Care PA Settlement US Ex Rel Cooper, Herbert v Blue Cross & Blue Shield of FL Inc Settlement US Ex Rel Murray, John v Bellsouth Telecommunications Inc et al Settlement US ex rel Shechter, Oded MD v Quest Diagnostics Inc F/K/A Corning Clinical Labs Inc et al Settlement US ex rel Dructor, Paul v Beacon Career Institute Inc; Alexis, Kelvin & Patricia Settlement US ex rel Purdin, Jan v Therapeutic Rehabilitation Centers Inc; Mar.ti.net. Corp; Tschanz, Martin Settlement US ex rel Paredes, Jose; Elortegui, Enrique v RES-Care Inc Settlement US ex rel Clayman, David v Steinberg, Fred L; MRI Radiology Network PA; University et al Settlement US ex rel Cortinas, Teresa M MD PA et al v Burke, Robert D MD; Midtown Imaging LLC et al Settlement US ex rel Rivera, Rafael v Restore Respiratory Care Inc; Avante Group Inc; Mariner Health Group Inc Settlement US ex rel Hill, Karon v Morehouse Medical Assoc Inc Settlement US ex rel Allen, Robert J v Physician Specialists in Anesthesia PC et al Settlement US ex rel Achiron, Debbie v Kinahan, James J MD PC & James J Dr; Hogue-Kinahan, Janice Settlement US ex rel Loper, Jean; King, John A v Donalsonville Hosp Inc; Donalsonville Medical Assoc Inc et al Settlement US ex rel Ward, Valencia v Medquest Associates Inc; Medquest Inc; Open MRI of Georgia Inc et al Settlement US Ex Rel Madyastha, K Ramananda MD v Metpath Inc;Corning Labs Inc; Corning Inc Settlement US Ex Rel Toyama, George v Hawpe Const Inc Settlement US ex rel McCarthy, Lillian; Manuel, Katherine v Straub Clinic & Hosp Inc; Phycor HI Inc et al Settlement US ex rel Mock, Neil A; Lebow, Scott H v Lockheed ID Tech Co et al Settlement US ex rel Cleverley, Adam; White, Andrew vIFCC PA F/K/A ID Falls Chiropractic Clinic et al Settlement US ex rel Davis, Trudy v Lincare Inc; Does, John I-X Settlement US Ex Rel Floyd Phillips Comp DBA Pheasant Ridge/ Hunter Apts v Seivers, Cheryl; Warren, Sharon ETA Judgment US ex rel Chandler, Janet PhD v The Hektoen Institute For Medical Research; Cook County Hosp Settlement US ex rel Wisz, Mary Ann v Columbia/HCA Hlthcare DBA Columbia-Olympia Fields Hosp Settlement US ex rel Grant, Cherry v Rush-Presbyterian- St Luke’s Medical Ctr Settlement US ex rel Asch, Thomas F v Teller, Levit & Silvertrust PC Settlement US ex rel King, Reava v F E Moran Inc; Armon Inc; Thermodyne Mechanical Services Inc et al Settlement US ex rel Peterson, David Dr v Community General Hospital; Sterling Rock Falls Clinic et al Settlement US ex rel Shultz, Jennifer S v DeVry Inc Settlement US; State of Illinois ex rel Mason, Sean v Medline Industries Inc; Medline Foundation Settlement US ex rel Block, Renata v Del Campo, Danilo V et al Settlement US ex rel Humphrey, Tenna L; St of IL v Franklin- Williamson Human Service Inc Settlement US ex rel Bigham, Michelle; State of Illinois ex rel Bigham, Michelle v Rommel, W David DDS Judgment US ex rel Cobin, Donna; Turner, Marsha et al v Michaelis Jackson & Associates LLC et al Settlement US ex rel Childers, Jan v Indiana Fam Hlth Counsel Inc et al Settlement US ex rel Health Care Fraud Detection System Inc v Home Pharm-Assist Inc Settlement US ex rel Main, Jeffrey E v Oakland City University; General Baptists Inc Settlement US ex rel Schultheis, Timothy C Relator v City of Clinton Iowa Settlement US Ex Rel Roxberry v Robertson & Penn Inc AKA Natl Ser Comp Settlement US Ex Rel Willis, Ron v Teledyne Inc Settlement US Ex Rel Grover, Robert S MD v Dunnington, James E MD; Pathology Asscos Psc Settlement US ex rel Burns, Fred M; Richter, Terry v Hensel Phelps Construction Co; Rose, Mickey et al Settlement US ex rel Lacorte, William St John MD v Smithkline Beecham Clinical Labs Inc Settlement US ex rel Clark, Donna; Syll, Beverly v Simon, John C MD; Acute Dialysis Service LLC et al Settlement US ex rel Duncan, Claude I v Safety-Kleen (Plaquemine) Inc; Clean Harbors (Plaquemine) LLC et al Settlement US ex rel McCready, Clint MD v Columbia North Monroe Hosp; Milestone Healthcare Columbia et al Settlement US Ex Rel Millett, Terry v Reynolds, Frank N. Jr &diane J Judgment US Ex Rel Maclennan, Alaister vJCB Inc; J C Bamford Excavators Ltd; JCB Ser Settlement US Ex Rel Taxpayers Against Fraud; Graves, James; Hahn, Victoria v Cae-Link Corp; Singer Comp Settlement US ex rel Reillo, Michelle v Metabolic Health System Inc; Cody, C William; Sauro, Jim Settlement US ex rel Schulman, Howard v Unisys Corp Settlement US Ex Rel City of Springfield v Graziano, Christopher M, David A & Mark A et al Judgment US ex rel Maguire, Deborah v Omnicare Inc Settlement US ex rel Barrett, Dawn v Cigna Corp Settlement US Ex Rel Frank, Stewart D v Oakland Livingston Legal Aid; Frank, Sarah R; Zimmer, Paula et al Settlement US Ex Rel Smith, June E v Gilbert Realty Comp Inc;Burgess, Howard Judgment US EX REL Schell, Thomas M v Battle Creek Health System; Mercy Health Services et al Settlement US ex rel McCandliss, Glenn A v Sekendur, Batur C & Oral Judgment US ex rel Stadler, Peter L v Project Torch Inc; Special Care Home Inc; Doe Corp I-Ill et al Judgment US ex rel Stadler, Peter L v Project Torch Inc; Special Care Home Inc; Doe Corp I-Ill et al Settlement US Ex Rel Lang, Barbara S v Nash Finch Comp Settlement US ex rel MN Assoc of Nurse Anesthetists v Allina Health System Corp; Unity Hosp; Mercy Hosp et al Settlement US ex rel Habib, Siraj v Advance Circuits Inc Settlement US ex rel Barrett, Susan v Northstar Guarantee Inc; Fountainhead Group LLC; Pinnacle Financial LLC Settlement US ex rel Hays, Patrick M v Hoffman, Luverne; Knock, Kay et al Judgment US ex rel Seman, Thomas V v United Defense; FMC Corp; Harsco Corp Settlement US ex rel Lee, Toni Michelle v Fairview Health Services Settlement US Ex Rel Hearn, Jane v MS Dept of Rehab Ser; MS School Supply Comp Settlement US ex rel Burk, Raymond v Akal Security Inc D/B/A Akal Security Services et al Settlement US ex rel Eden, Robert v Lincoln Action Program Inc Settlement US Ex Rel Mansfield, Joseph v St of NJ Settlement US ex rel Haskins, Diane et al v Omega Institute Inc; Cobleigh, Lee E; Burke, Franklin et al Settlement US Ex Rel Iriscan Inc v Johnston, Roger G; Regents 0/T Univ of CA Settlement US ex rel Daughety, W D v FEL Corp; Hurley, William D Settlement US ex rel Fnd for Fair Contracting Ltd v Martell Const Co Inc Settlement US ex rel Foundation for Fair Contracting Ltd v Ingerman Construction Co; Arline LLC Settlement US ex rel Schwartz, George R MD v Coastal Healthcare Inc et al Settlement US ex rel Tinker, Michael & Karen v Gulton Industries Inc Settlement US ex rel Krohn, John C v Sun West Service Inc; Fine Host Corp; Smitherman, William C et al Settlement US Ex Rel Bullock, Douglas; Lawson, Nancy v Fulton-Montgomery-Schoharie Private Inds Coun Inc Settlement US ex rel Branigan, Michael v Basset Healthcare Corp; Rauscher, L Andrew M D et al Settlement US Ex Rel Decarlo, Philip v Kiewit/Afc Enterprisesinc; Kiewit Eastern Comp; AFC Enterprises Inc Settlement US ex rel Cantrell, Stephen B v NY Univ; Bystryn, Jean-Claude; Oratz, Ruth; Shapiro, Richard et al Settlement US ex rel Winters, Philip v WLIW Channel 21; Long Island Ed TV Coun Inc; Cass, Terrel L et al Settlement US ex rel Brooks, Darrin; Goforth, Edwin et al v Mantech Advanced Systems Intn1 Inc et al Settlement US Ex Rel Hillis, Michael v Brian Ctr Management Corp; Medical Therapy Rehab Service Inc Settlement US ex rel Phillips, Linda Gail v Pediatric Services of America Inc; Harris Reg Hosp Inc; Psa/Hrh L L Settlement US ex rel Lindsey, James &Jane v Easter Seals UCP North Carolina Inc et al Settlement US Ex Rel Owen, James; Phelps, Kristen A. v. Obroncorp. Settlement US Ex Rel Beaumont, William v Gold Cross Medical Inc Settlement US ex rel Weaver, Juanita v MJM Mgt Co Settlement US ex rel Menapace, Antoinette v Premier Medical Group Inc F/K/A Mohammed Y Aiti MD Inc et al Settlement US Ex Rel Skinner, David G v Cincinnati Gear Comp Settlement US Ex Rel Pedicone, Alfred J v Mazak Corp Settlement US Ex Rel Burch, Barbara K; Harmon, Joan R; et al.v. Piqua Engineering Inc. Settlement US Ex Rel Byrus, Paul; Davis, Harold, et al. v. M/G Transport Service Inc; R&f Coal Comp Settlement US Ex Rel Stevens, Darrell Edward v McGinnis Inc Settlement US Ex Rel Roy, Sheila v Anthony, James J MD; Armitage, James L MD; Feibel, John MD et al Settlement US Ex Rel Pickens, Earl v. Kanawha River Towing, Inc; Campbell Trans Comp Inc.; G&c Towing, et al. Settlement US Ex Rel Watt, William T v Fluor Daniel Corp; Prentice Hall Corp Sys Settlement US Ex Rel Bauer, Carl E v GE Comp Settlement US Ex Rel Fed Equipment Comp v Myers Sys Inc Settlement US Ex Rel Wess, Patricia A; Richard E Lord & Assn; Beram, Barbara L et al v Doctors Hosp Settlement US ex rel Morris, James v Crist, Kenneth D; Pharmacotherapy Research Assocs Inc et al Settlement US Ex Rel Cooper, Lynn Neesa v Western Staff Service (Usa) Inc; Western Medical Sers Settlement US ex rel Martin, Mary B v Deaconess Assocs Inc; Botschner, Andrew T Corporate Counsel et al Settlement US ex rel Treon, Craig v Digital Techs Inc NKA DTI Holdings Inc; Systran Corp et al Settlement US ex rel Collier, Steven F v IT Group F/K/A Intn1 Technologies Corp; Fluor Corp; Flour Fernald Inc Settlement US ex rel Smith, Randall L; Wilcox, Michel D et al v American Management Systems Inc Settlement US ex rel Mackay, John v Touchstone Research Laboratory Ltd Settlement US ex rel Precision Co v Koch Industry Inc et al Settlement US ex rel Lovelace, David A; Freeman, Billy D; Buzzard, David M et al v Morrison Knudsen Corp Settlement US Ex Rel Shaw, Debra A v AAA Engineering & Drafting et al Judgment US Ex Rel Kulongoski, Theodore R State Atty Gen Stof OR v Siaw, Caleb MD, P.C. Judgment US ex rel Harrington, Francis E v Sisters of Providence OR et al Settlement US ex rel Darrig, Michael v Medical Consultants Network Inc Settlement US Ex Rel Givler, Lawanda; HUD v. Smith, Gary; Buclk-Jankowski Inc; Gordon Bennett Inc Settlement US ex rel Galvin, F/N/U v Orlind Construction Co Settlement US Ex Rel Nixon, Steve v. Warren E. Smith Commun Mental Retardation & Substance Abuse Ctrs Judgment US ex rel Dunleavy, Anthony J v Erickson, Edwin B Exec Dir County of DE et al Settlement US ex rel Connus, Bruce J v Bethesda House Corp; Lutheran Knolls; Lutheran Knolls North et al Settlement US ex rel Dubbs, Robert M v Albert Einstein Healthcare Network et al Settlement US ex rel Anderson, Cindy Lee; Rutledge & Partnership for Fraud Analysis v Ara Group Inc et al Settlement US ex rel Joyce, William F v Segal, Michael H; Revere Street Medical Assoc; Segal, Maryanne Settlement US ex rel McShane, F/N/U v S J Thomas Co Settlement US ex rel McCarey, Thomas v Abington Memorial Hosp Settlement US ex rel Doe, John I-XI v Network Ambulance Service Inc D/B/A Life Support Ambulance Inc et al Settlement US ex rel Kosenske, Ted D MD v Carlisle HMA Inc; Carlisle Regional Surgery Center et al Settlement US ex rel Kohler, William G v Hamill Mfg Co; Numis Corp; Kelly, William B &Jeffrey Settlement US Ex Rel Tomczak, Pamela v Herman, Jay MD Settlement US Ex Rel Weinstein, Susan v Litman, Eugene; McCarthy, James; Property Dev Assocs Ltd et al Settlement US ex rel Cooper, Mark L v Gentiva Carecentrix Inc Trading & D/B/A Gentiva Health Services Settlement US Ex Rel Pitt, George; Ferguson, James v FD Ser Inc; Fluor Daniel Inc Settlement US ex rel Harrison, Edwin P v Westinghouse Savannah River Co Judgment US ex rel Skinner, Bruce S v North Trident Regional Hosp Inc et al Settlement US ex rel Ravenell, Wanda v South Carolina Mentor Inc; Lifetime Corp Settlement US ex rel Bryant, Jay et al v Williams Building Corp Settlement US ex rel Cornett, Jack; Koral, Lawrence F v Crow Creek Tribal School; Duwayne et al Settlement US & State of Tennesse ex rel Mayes, Jeanne F v Kindred Healthcare Inc et al Settlement US ex rel Pogue, A Scott v American Healthcorp Inc; Diabetes Treatment Centers of America Inc et al Settlement US Ex Rel Shipp, Jack v Hlthtech Rehab Inc-Tx; Hlthtech Rehab Inc-Ca et al Settlement US ex rel Fitzgerald, Cynthia I; State of Texas v Novation LLC VHA Inc et al Settlement US Ex Rel Murphy, Del v Rockwell Space Operations Comp; Unisys Corp Settlement US ex rel Riley, Joyce v St Luke’s Episcopal Hosp; Radovancevic, Branislav et al Settlement US Ex Rel Samuels, Gregory; Ochoa, Nancy v Alegis Corp Settlement US ex rel Doe, John; John Doe Industry v Driscoll Children’s Hosp Settlement US ex rel Nelius, Edvin A v Mariner Health Group Inc Settlement US ex rel Longhi, Alfred J Jr v Lithium Power Technologies; Munshi, Mohammed Zafar A; Coowar, Fazlil Judgment US ex rel Wedgeworth, Michelle v Christus Health Systems Corp; Christus Spohn Health Systems Corp Settlement US ex rel Smart, Danny Lynn v Christus Spohn Health System Corp Settlement US Ex Rel Bortner, Lloyd T v Philips Elec North American Corp; N v Philips Gloeilampenfabrieken Et Settlement US ex rel Bell-Messier, Sheila v Ro-Tech Healthcare Inc; Integrated Health Services Inc et al Settlement US Ex Rel Hafer, Charles v. City of Austin TX DBA Brackenridge Hosp Settlement US Ex Rel Boerner, Mark J MD v Eyecare Netword Inc; Primary Eye Care Inc; Vision Unlimited Inc Et A Settlement US ex rel Tanner, Deborah v Accord Medical Management Inc DBA Nix Health Care System et al Settlement US ex rel Jiminez, Roxanne; Gomez, Jessica; Rodriguez, Catherine et al v Dermatology et al Settlement US ex rel Dotson, Helen V v Texoma Mobility Inc; Kraus, Katrina Lynne Settlement US Ex Rel Colunga, Katherine A v Hercules Inc; United Precision Machine & Engineering Comp et al Settlement US Ex Rel Hullinger, Benny D v Hercules Inc Settlement US ex rel Martin, J Michael; Moore, Frederick C v Bald Eagle Realty et al Settlement US ex rel Stearns, Lisa v Lane, Rashied Judgment US Ex Rel Leonard, John E v Sysorex Info Sys Inc Settlement US ex rel Kinsey, Samuel L v Crawford & Comp Settlement US ex rel Kirby, Ronney v Kamarell Concrete Construction Inc; Mitchell, Ralph & Damon Judgment US ex rel Bumgardner, George W v Datatape Inc; Eastman Kodak Comp In Re Settlement US ex rel Summit, Kenneth E v Michael Baker Corp; Baker Support Service Inc; Call Henry Inc Settlement US ex rel Daniel, Everett; Carpenter, Eric v Harris Corp; Nelson, Pamela; Gillian, Gene et al Settlement US Ex Rel Fener, Diane v VA Publ Defender Commissioner; Pollard, Overton Exec Dir Settlement US ex rel Pasto, Mary Kathryn v Megabyte Business System Inc Settlement US ex rel Baugh, Richard v Power Paragon Inc Settlement US ex rel Cole, Karen S; Commonwealth of Virginia v Inova Health Care Services et al Settlement US ex rel DRC Inc et al v Custer Battles LLC; Secure Global Distribution; Middle East Leasing et al Judgment US ex rel Duncan, Christine Misha-Anne Relator v LS Technologies LLC; Loftus, Thomas et al Settlement US Ex Rel Sands, Lee & Patricia v Tad Technical Service Corp; Loper, Lance & Kelly Settlement
US Ex Rel Smith, Miriam v Gopalan, Ram MD Settlement US ex rel Roberts, Joyce; Nyetrae, Shirley; Landau, Barbara Jo; Buie, James v KRG Capital LLC et al Settlement US ex rel Hockett, Debra MD; Thompson, Linda MD et al v Columbia/HCA Healthcare Corp et al Settlement US ex rel Abdeen, Anwar MD v Lee County Community Hosp; Norton, Richard; Physicians’ Access Settlement US ex rel Herndon, G Wayne v Appalachian Regional community Headstart Inc; Kids Central Inc Judgment US Ex Rel Rudd, Stephen J & Lanterman, Mark v Gen Contrs Inc; Schimmels, H Edwin & Mary Jo et al Settlement US Ex Rel McKinney, Clifford L. v. Sundstrand Data Control Corp Settlement US Ex Rel Hubbard, Steven T v Fire Protection Dist#5; Mason Cnty; Knight, Richard A et al Settlement US ex rel Jorgenson, Cecil G v Alan Ritchey Inc Settlement US Ex Rel American Cyanamid Comp et al v Ohm Remediation Service Comp; Roy F Weston Inc Settlement US ex rel Gilligan-O’Brien, Nancy C v Rock Valley Community Programs Inc; McHugh, Irwin Settlement US; State of Michigan ex rel Lafortune, James v Beacon Ambulance Service Inc Settlement US Ex Rel Harris, Mark W & Georgia M v Logan, John W Logan Real Estate Comp; Logan Fin Corp et al Settlement

The post Qui Tam Whistleblower Cases Produced $97 Million in Recoveries After Being Declined by Justice Department appeared first on Whistleblower Lawyer Blog.

Since Congress acted decisively in 1986 to breathe life into the False Claims Act through amendments intended to expand use of the nation’s major anti-fraud whistleblower law, the Supreme Court and some lower courts have regularly intervened by imposing their own views on what Congress must have meant in writing the 1986 amendments.

Those decisions hostile to enforcement of the False Claims Act included Allison Engine Co. v. United States ex rel. Sanders, 553 U.S. 662 (2008); United States ex rel. Totten v. Bombardier Corp., 380 F.3d 488 (D.C. Cir. 2004), cert. denied, 544 U.S. 1032 (2005); and United States ex rel. DRC, Inc. v. Custer Battles, LLC, 376 F. Supp. 2d 617 (E.D. Va. 2005), rev’d, 562 F.3d 295 (4th Cir. 2009)).

Since then, in 2009 and 2010 Congress responded emphatically with three more sets of FCA amendments to state, in essence, what Congress actually intended in 1986, and still intends, the law to mean. We have previously discussed those amendments made by the 2009-2010 legislation known as FERA, PPACA, and Dodd-Frank. (Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009, Pub. L. No. 111-21, 123 Stat. 1617 (“FERA”); Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Pub. L. 111-148, 124 Stat. 119 (“PPACA”); Dodd-Frank Financial Reform Act (“Dodd-Frank”), Pub. L. No. 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376.)

Today’s decision in Schindler Elevator Corp. v. United States ex rel. Kirk is a victory for those who seek to make it more difficult to use the “old” version of the False Claims Act to battle fraud against taxpayers. The Supreme Court’s decision today continued the legislative tennis match with Congress.

The Court held that what is known as the “public disclosure bar” of the False Claims Act deprived courts of jurisdiction over this qui tam whistleblower case, because the whistleblower had attempted to corroborate his allegations through FOIA requests.

Fortunately for those who favor stopping fraud against taxpayers, the decision should have no effect on qui tam cases filed after the March 22, 2010 enactment of PPACA, the major health reform bill.

Before PPACA, the False Claims Act Act provided that, when there is an action “based upon the public disclosure of allegations or transactions” in one of three specified categories of places where disclosures can occur, the court shall lack jurisdiction over the action, unless “the person bringing the action is an original source of the information.” The three specified places of “public disclosure” were “[1] in a criminal, civil, or administrative hearing, [2] in a congressional, administrative, or Government Accounting Office report, hearing, audit, or investigation, or [3] from the news media.”

As we have discussed in our past writings on the False Claims Act, PPACA has removed this jurisdictional bar, has authorized the government to prevent dismissal on this basis if it chooses, and has relaxed the standard for relators to establish that they are an “original source” as a means of avoiding dismissal on that basis as well. In addition, PPACA limited the type of public disclosures in question to federal sources, and thus pre-empted for future violations the Supreme Court’s ruling shortly thereafter in 2010 in Graham County Soil & Water Conservation District v. United States ex rel. Wilson, 130 S. Ct. 1396 (2010)(state report created public disclosure under prior version of FCA).

Today’s decision–similar to many past decisions attempting to limit what Congress has plainly said–nonetheless leaves readers to wonder if this Supreme Court has a preference for making large scale fraud against taxpayers more difficult to stop.

The False Claims Act is an important law enforcement statute. Courts do not need to legislate from the bench to change the meaning of what Congress has written. Taxpayers lose when decisions like this one occur.

Shouldn’t we want to encourage whistleblowers to verify and corroborate their information? As Justice Ginsburg’s dissent today observed:

Why should a whistleblower attentive to the heightened pleading standards of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) be barred from court if he seeks corroboration for his allegations, as Kirk did, through a FOIA request simply for copies of a contractor’s filings? After today’s decision, which severely limits whistleblowers’ ability to substantiate their allegations before commencing suit, that question is worthy of Congress’ attention.

The post New Supreme Court False Claims Act Decision Today: Could This Court Be Any Friendlier to Qui Tam Defendants? appeared first on Whistleblower Lawyer Blog.

This discussion is part of a fascinating gathering this April in South Beach–the OffshoreAlert Conference. As the brochure promises:

Where else could tax collectors mingle with tax minimizers, asset tracers with asset protectors, regulators with the regulated, whistleblowers with their former employers and crooks with prosecutors?

How to protect whistleblowers from criminal and civil liability was a topic my panel discussed at the 2010 IRS Whistleblower Boot Camp in Washington. Because we had the IRS Chief Counsel’s Office participating in that discussion, we were unable to discuss directly what went wrong for Birkenfeld as he brought important information about tax evasion to the attention of the IRS, but ended up serving a prison sentence of 40 months. (We have written previously about Birkenfeld’s errors revealed in the court record.)

At the OffshoreAlert Conference discussion this year, I will moderate the panel discussion about what can be done to protect whistleblowers from criminal and civil exposure. Joining me are former Justice Department official and former General Counsel of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security Joe D. Whitley; former prosecutor and now whistleblower attorney Marc Raspanti; and federal and international tax attorney Richard Rubin.

The program description is reprinted below:

Avoiding the Mistakes of the UBS/Birkenfeld Case: Protecting Whistleblowers from Criminal and Civil Liability

Time: 1:15 PM – 2:30 PM
Date: Tuesday, April 5, 2010
Keywords: Money Laundering & Compliance
“Swiss banker turned whistleblower ended up with a prison sentence” read one headline. How did UBS whistleblower Bradley Birkenfeld end up being prosecuted for a felony, and serving a forty-month prison sentence–even though the IRS found his information essential to its $780 million settlement with UBS? How can other whistleblowers minimize their risks of facing criminal and civil liability when they report substantial financial violations?

This panel of a former senior U.S. Department of Justice official, other former criminal prosecutors, and an international tax attorney will discuss what the UBS whistleblower apparently did to subject himself to criminal prosecution-and the steps a whistleblower must take to avoid that fate. The whistleblower lawyers on the panel will discuss the “ground rules” for minimizing the risks to whistleblowers of criminal and civil liability, both in the United States and other countries.

•Michael A. Sullivan, Whistleblower Lawyer, Finch McCranie (Atlanta)

•Marc S. Raspanti, Whistleblower Lawyer and Former Prosecutor, Pietragallo Gordon Alfano Bosick & Raspanti, LLP (Philadelphia)

•Richard R. Rubin, Federal and International Tax Attorney, Rubin Law (Johannesburg/Atlanta)

•Joe D. Whitley, former U.S. Acting Associate Attorney General and former General Counsel of U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Greenberg Traurig, LLP (Washington, D.C. & Atlanta)

The post Offshore Alert Conference: Protecting Whistleblowers from Criminal and Civil Liability appeared first on Whistleblower Lawyer Blog.

V. States’ Experiences With Their Own False Claims Acts

As noted, at least twenty-eight states now have a False Claims statute, and many other states are considering similar laws. The financial incentives of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 have not only prompted states that lacked False Claims statutes to enact them, but also have caused many states wishing to qualify for the additional funds to amend their existing False Claims statutes.

In essence, while states may enact “tougher” or more comprehensive laws than the federal False Claims Act, states with “weaker” or less effective laws-as judged by the standards of the Deficit Reduction Act-will not qualify for the additional funds.

Seven of the first ten states whose statutes were scrutinized by the Office of Inspector General (OIG) quickly learned this lesson when OIG disapproved their state statutes. These included California (which lacked a minimum penalty), Florida (which omitted “fraudulent” from its definition of claims), Indiana (which did not make defendants liable for “deliberate ignorance” and “reckless disregard”), Louisiana (which did not permit the state to intervene in cases, set too low a percentage for whistleblowers to recover, and set no minimum penalty), Michigan (which omitted penalties and liability for decreasing or avoiding an obligation to pay the government, i.e., a “reverse false claim”), Nevada (which had a statute of limitations too short and a minimum penalty too low), and Texas (which did not permit the whistleblower to litigate the case if the state did not, and which provided for lower percentage shares to whistleblowers and lower penalties). Most of these states have gone back to the drawing board to correct these deficiencies.

In sum, the Deficit Reduction Act has set minimum standards for state False Claims Acts for states wishing to receive these additional funds. In plain English, the state laws must protect at least Medicaid funds, and they must be at least as effective as the federal False Claims Act, especially in rewarding and facilitating qui tam actions for false or fraudulent claims, with damages and penalties no less than those under the federal Act.

Many state False Claims laws have been in transition since 2006. States whose laws have been “disapproved” by OIG have begun to amend their statutes to meet the requirements for obtaining the additional funds under the Deficit Reduction Act, as Florida and Texas accomplished in 2007. While these laws are in flux, some significant differences from the “Medicaid-only” laws such as Georgia’s new State False Medicaid Claims Act are likely to remain.

First, the majority of state False Claims statutes protect the state’s funds generally, rather than protecting only state Medicaid funds, as Georgia’s new State False Medicaid Claims Act is limited. Just as the federal False Claims Act is not limited to health care fraud, but encompasses fraud against the government generally (except for Internal Revenue violations, which are now covered by the new IRS Whistleblower program), many states have used these statutes to protect public funds in general from fraud. Those states include California, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Virginia, and Tennessee.

Because states have this leeway under the Deficit Reduction Act to pass laws that may be “tougher” or more “effective” than the federal Act, some states have set the statutory penalties higher than the federal level of $5,500 to $11,000 per claim. For instance, under the New York FCA enacted in 2007 and amended in 2010, penalties range from $6,000 to $12,000 for each false or fraudulent claim.

Some other states authorize a higher percentage of the state’s recovery that a relator (whistleblower) may receive, instead of the percentages that the federal False Claims Act authorizes: 15-25% of the recovery in cases in which the government intervenes, and 25-30% in cases in which the government does not intervene. For example, Nevada’s percentages are 15-33% in intervened cases, and 25-50% in non-intervened cases; Tennessee’s are 25-33% in intervened cases and 35-50% in non-intervened cases; and Montana’s range from 15-50%.

Most qui tam cases filed under the state False Claims statutes have related to health care. Many are “global” Medicaid cases that were first developed in federal courts as Medicare and Medicaid fraud cases and that concerned a nationwide fraud which had been investigated by multiple federal and state jurisdictions.

Most of the state settlements have come from “piggy backing” on federal law enforcement efforts and from joining in global settlements. Experience with some of the newer state statutes is too recent to evaluate, but many states have reported the desire for more resources to develop such cases.

We do not know with any precision the dollar amount of fraud that affects state government spending, or how much of that fraud can be prevented through effective use of a state False Claims Act. For now, the states that have passed False Claims Acts will see how much of their fraud losses can be recovered through these laws.

VI. Conclusion

The heath care industry faces ever-increasing federal and state enforcement efforts through use of the newly amended False Claims Act, and the increasing number of state False Claims Acts. These statutes are profoundly important to any lawyer who practices in health care and who wishes to advise clients on the potentially huge damages and penalties that can result from violations of the federal and state False Claims Acts.

The post Part 6: States’ Experiences With Their Own False Claims Acts appeared first on Whistleblower Lawyer Blog.

As a former defense attorney who now represents whistleblowers, I have been asked to present a program at this conference with Rick Shackelford of King & Spalding, to discuss these major amendments to the False Claims Act–the first since 1986. Congress acted decisively in three recent major bills to restore the False Claims Act to its intended strength, in the face of court decisions that created obstacles to its use.

The recent amendments were part of the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009, Pub. L. No. 111-21, 123 Stat. 1617 (“FERA”); the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Pub. L. 111-148, 124 Stat. 119 (“PPACA”); and the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Pub. L. No. 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376 (the “Dodd-Frank Financial Reform Act”).

This week’s forum is sponsored by the American Health Lawyers Association and Health Care Compliance Association.

An updated discussion of the False Claims Act after these 2009 and 2010 changes will appear soon on this Whistleblower Lawyer Blog. A brief summary of those important changes to the Act is below:

Responding to variety of court decisions since 1986 that had limited the FCA’s effect, Congress again acted decisively in 2009 and 2010 with amendments, in three stages:

First, the 2009 Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act (“FERA”) legislatively overruled judicial decisions that had limited the FCA’s reach, including Allison Engine Co. v. United States ex rel. Sanders, 128 S. Ct. 2123 (2008); United States ex rel. Totten v. Bombardier Corp., 380 F.3d 488 (D.C. Cir. 2004), cert. denied, 544 U.S. 1032 (2005); and United States ex rel. DRC, Inc. v. Custer Battles, LLC, 376 F. Supp. 2d 617 (E.D. Va. 2005), rev’d, 562 F.3d 295 (4th Cir. 2009). The major effects of the 2009 FERA amendments included the following:

1. The amendments expanded the definition of “claim,” and fraud directed against government contractors, grantees and other recipients is now plainly covered by the FCA.

2. Funds administered by the United States government (such as in Iraq) are now included within the FCA’s protections.

3. Retaining overpayments of money from the government is now an explicit basis of liability, which is an important broadening of the Act from the perspective of health care providers, among others.

4. Liability for “conspiracy” to violate the FCA is far broader, and now includes conspiring to commit a violation of any substantive FCA theory of liability.

5. Protection of whistleblowers and others against “retaliation” now extends not only to “employees,” but also to “contractors” and “agents”; and persons other than “employers” potentially may be held liable for retaliation.

6. In investigating, the government now has authority to use “civil investigative demands” more broadly to gather evidence and take testimony, and to share information more with state and local authorities and with whistleblowers/relators.

7. A standard definition of what is “material” now applies in False Claims Act cases.

8. The statute of limitations has been clarified in qui tam cases to facilitate the government’s asserting its own claims.

Second, in the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“PPACA”), Congress made other important changes to the FCA. From a relator’s perspective, perhaps most significant was eliminating language in the “public disclosure” provision (section 3730(e)(4)(a)) that sometimes deprived the court of subject matter jurisdiction. Congress rewrote that provision so that the court no longer loses subject matter jurisdiction even if a “public disclosure” has occurred. Another change to this section was to empower the government to prevent dismissals based on “public disclosure” through the following language: “the court shall dismiss an action or claim under this section, unless opposed by the Government . . . .”

In addition, from a health care entity’s perspective, the most important FCA change in PPACA may be that it clarified and extended liability for overpayments identified but retained by providers in Medicare and Medicaid claims.

Third, in the July 2010 Dodd-Frank Financial Reform Act, Congress created a uniform three year statute of limitations for claims of “retaliation” pursuant to section 3730(h). It also corrected an apparent drafting error in FERA’s 2009 changes to the same section by restoring its intended breadth. The anti-retaliation provision now encompasses (a) not only the pre-FERA definition of “protected conduct” as “lawful acts done . . . in furtherance of [an FCA action]” (which FERA had mistakenly dropped from the statute), but also (b) FERA’s expansion of the definition of “protected conduct” to include “other efforts to stop 1 or more violations [of the FCA] . . . .” 31 U.S.C. § 3730(h).

These changes are intended to restore the False Claims Act to its intended strength as the nation’s primary anti-fraud civil statute. It owes its success to private citizen whistleblowers who report fraud against the government.

The post Health Care Fraud Cases and 2009-2010 Amendments to False Claims Act Discussed at National Fraud and Compliance Forum appeared first on Whistleblower Lawyer Blog.

Both in 2009 and 2010, Congress has removed obstacles to whistleblowers’ use of this anti-fraud statute to address Medicare and Medicaid fraud, as well as fraud affecting every other federal program. As we have written about previously, the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009 (“FERA”) overruled key judicial decisions that had undermined the the False Claims Act’s effectiveness.

This year, the landmark health care bill, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“PPACA”), limited the FCA’s “public disclosure” bar, including by allowing the government to prevent dismissal of cases that it believes should proceed.

The post Health Care Industry and 2009-2010 Changes to False Claims Act appeared first on Whistleblower Lawyer Blog.

Civil investigative demands allow to government to require any person believed to have documents or information relevant to a False Claims Act investigation to do the following:

(A) to produce such documentary material for inspection and copying,

The post Greatest Impact of 2009 False Claims Act Amendments–“Civil Investigative Demands” appeared first on Whistleblower Lawyer Blog.

DOJ cited the threat to patients of “imminent and serious threat of harm to their lives, health and safety.”

The seven hospitals include East Central Regional Hospital, Georgia Regional Hospital at Savannah, Georgia Regional Hospital at Atlanta, Southwestern State Hospital, Central State Hospital, West Central Georgia Regional Hospital, and Northwest Georgia Regional Hospital.

The announcement is repinted below:

Department of Justice Office of Public Affairs FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Friday, January 29, 2010 Justice Department Files for Immediate Relief Regarding Conditions in Georgia’s Hospitals WASHINGTON – The Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division today announced that it has filed a motion for immediate relief to protect individuals confined in seven state-run psychiatric hospitals in Georgia from the imminent and serious threat of harm to their lives, health and safety. The motion, filed late yesterday, seeks appointment of a monitor who will set binding targets and timetables for reducing the number of residents at the hospitals and expanding appropriate community based services.
A year ago, the state of Georgia and the Justice Department entered into an agreement to ensure that individuals in the hospitals were served in the most appropriate integrated settings and that unlawful conditions in the hospitals were remedied. The agreement was filed in United States v. Georgia, and the parties asked U.S. District Judge Charles A. Pannell Jr. to approve the agreement. However, the court has not yet approved the agreement.
The Justice Department has been monitoring conditions in the hospitals and has found that the facilities continue to be dangerous and that hundreds of individuals who could and should be served in the community remain institutionalized and continue to be exposed to dangerous conditions. Georgia continues to fail to serve patients in the most integrated setting appropriate to their needs, and preventable deaths, suicides and assaults continue to occur with alarming frequency in the hospitals.
“States responsible for the care of individuals living in state run facilities have a duty to protect them from harm. Individuals in Georgia’s hospitals are being subjected to a widespread pattern of violence and are not being protected from preventable deaths,” said Thomas E. Perez, Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Civil Rights Division. “We need quick action to protect these individuals.”
More than a decade ago, in Olmstead v. L.C., the Supreme Court found that Georgia Regional Hospital in Atlanta was impermissibly segregating two individuals with disabilities in that hospital when they could have been served in more integrated settings. The Supreme Court ordered states to serve individuals with disabilities in the most integrated settings appropriate to their needs. In the same hospital involved in that landmark case, and the other six run by Georgia, the state continues to impermissibly segregate hundreds of individuals.
In addition to the unlawful segregation, individuals in the hospitals are exposed to egregious harm. Some examples include:
• In 2009, the state failed to adequately supervise an individual who had killed previously. The individual assaulted and killed another individual in the hospital.
• In 2008, hospital staff failed to intervene in a fight between individuals. One of the individuals was knocked unconscious and died a few days later from blunt force trauma to the head.
• In 2009, staff failed to adequately supervise an individual who raped another individual.
• In 2009, an individual committed suicide by tipping his bed up and hanging himself from the upended bed. The Justice Department’s experts had repeatedly warned hospital staff during on-site visits of the dangers posed by these beds that were not bolted to the floor.
• This month, the state failed to adequately supervise an individual who expressed suicidal thoughts the day before she committed suicide.
The seven hospitals include East Central Regional Hospital, Georgia Regional Hospital at Savannah, Georgia Regional Hospital at Atlanta, Southwestern State Hospital, Central State Hospital, West Central Georgia Regional Hospital and Northwest Georgia Regional Hospital.
The Civil Rights Division is authorized to conduct investigations under the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act (CRIPA) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). CRIPA authorizes the Attorney General to investigate conditions of confinement in certain institutions owned or operated by, or on behalf of, state and local governments. In addition to psychiatric hospitals, these institutions include nursing homes, residential facilities serving persons with developmental disabilities, jails, prisons and juvenile correctional facilities. CRIPA’s focus is on systemic deficiencies rather than individual, isolated problems. The ADA authorizes the Attorney General to investigate whether a state is serving individuals in the most integrated settings appropriate to their needs. Please visit http://www.justice.gov/crt to learn more about CRIPA, the ADA and other laws enforced by the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division.
The motion for immediate relief was filed by Mary Bohan, Timothy Mygatt, Robert Koch and Emily Gunston, Trial Attorneys in the Special Litigation Section of the Civil Rights Division.
10-103 Civil Rights Division

The post Georgia Psychiatric Hospitals: Justice Department Suit for Immediate Relief to Protect Patients appeared first on Whistleblower Lawyer Blog.

I am pleased to be on the panel discussing “False Claims Act Developments,” moderated by Jack Boese of Fried Frank. This will be a particularly interesting year for this annual meeting, as Congress enacted major changes to the False Claims Act that took effect on May 20, 2009.

In addition, the “Health Care Fraud Enforcement Act” pending in the Senate would enhance further the government’s tools used to investigate and remedy Medicare and Medicaid fraud. This bill would remove any question that all payments made pursuant to illegal kickbacks are “false” for purposes of the False Claims Act.

Among the significant 2009 changes to the False Claims Act made by the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act are the following:

1. The amendments expanded the definition of “claim,” and fraud directed against government contractors, grantees, and other recipients is now plainly covered by the False Claims Act.

2. Funds administered by the United States government (e.g., in Iraq) are now protected.

3. Retaining overpayments of money from the government is now a stated basis of liability, which is a source of concern for health care providers, among others.

4. Liability for “conspiracy” to violate the Act is now broader.

5. Protection of whistleblowers and others against “retaliation” now extends not only to “employees,” but also to “contractors” and “agents”; and persons other than “employers” potentially may be liable for retaliation.

6. In investigations, the government now has authority to use “Civil Investigative Demands” more broadly, and to share information more with state and local authorities and with whistleblowers/relators.

7. A standard definition of what is “material” now applies in False Claims Act cases.

8. The statute of limitations has been clarified for when the government asserts its own claims, after the whistleblower (or “relator”) has filed a qui tam case under the False Claims Act.

The full agenda for tomorrow’s “SOUTHEASTERN HEALTH CARE FRAUD INSTITUTE” is below:

SOUTHEASTERN HEALTH CARE FRAUD INSTITUTE
DECEMBER 17, 2009

State Bar of Georgia Headquarters 104 Marietta St. NW Atlanta, GA

Co-Sponsors:
Health Law Section, State Bar of Georiga
Presiding:
Joe D. Whitley, Program Chair, Greenberg Traurig LLP, Atlanta & Washington, DC Paul B. Murphy, Program Co-Chair, King & Spalding LLP, Atlanta
7:45 REGISTRATION AND CONTINENTAL BREAKFAST (All attendees must check in upon arrival. A removable jacket or sweater is recommended.)

8:20 WELCOME AND PROGRAM OVERVIEW Joe D. Whitley Paul B. Murphy
8:30 FEDERAL AND STATE–HEALTH CARE FRAUD INITIATIVES Moderator:
Paul B. Murphy
Panelists:
Randy S. Chartash, Assistant United States Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Charles M. Richards, Director, State Health Care Fraud Control Unit, Tucker Kirk Ogrosky, Deputy Chief for Health Care Fraud, U.S. Department of Justice, Fraud Section, Criminal Division, Washington, DC Paul J. Fike, Supervisory Special Agent, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Atlanta
9:30 BREAK
9:45 FEDERAL AND STATE-FALSE CLAIMS ACT DEVELOPMENTS Moderator:
John T. Boese, Fried Frank, Washington, DC
Panelists:
Christopher J. Huber, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Michael A. Sullivan, Finch McCranie, LLP, Atlanta Marlan B. Wilbanks, Wilbanks & Bridges, Atlanta Paul N. Monnin, DLA Piper US LLP, Atlanta
10:45 ANTI-KICKBACK STATUTES and STARK ENFORCEMENT Moderator:
Gabriel Imperato, Broad & Cassel, Ft. Lauderdale, FL
Panelists:
Robert M. Keenan III, King & Spalding LLP, Atlanta Charlene L. McGinty, McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP, Atlanta Jacqueline C. Baratian, Alston & Bird LLP, Washingtion, DC
11:45 LUNCHEON (Included in registration fee)
“Looking Forward: Professionalism in 2010”
Amy Levine Weil, The Weil Firm, Atlanta; Former Chief, Appellate Section, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta
12:45 Health Care providers: general counsel ROUNDTABLE Moderator:
Joe D. Whitley
Panelists:
Jay D. Mitchell, Executive Vice President and General Counsel, Piedmont Healthcare, Inc., Atlanta Jane E. Jordan, Deputy General Counsel/Chief Health Counsel, Office of the General Counsel, Emory University, Atlanta Paul Justice, Vice President and General Counsel, Saint Joseph’s Hospital, Atlanta
1:45 before the government knocks: internal investigations and voluntary disclosure Moderator:
R. Joseph Burby, IV, Bryan Cave LLP, Atlanta
Panelists:
Christopher C. Burris, King & Spalding LLP, Atlanta Mark P. Schnapp, Greenberg Traurig LLP, Miami, FL Don J. DeGabrielle, Fulbright & Jaworski LLP, Houston, TX
2:35 after the government knocks: handling a health care fraud case (emphasis on parallel proceedings)
Moderator:
Anthony L. Cochran, Chilivis, Cochran, Larkins & Bever, LLP, Atlanta
Panelists:
Glenn D. Baker, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Richard H. Deane, Jones Day, Atlanta Michael L. Brown, Alston & Bird LLP, Atlanta
3:25 BREAK
3:40 Office of inspector general initiatives Moderator:
Nancy E. Taylor, Greenberg Traurig LLP, Washington, DC
Panelists:
Kenneth E. Hooper, Hooper Cornell PLLC, Boise, ID Julie L. Nielsen, Health Care Litigation & Investigations Consultant, Tampa, FL Jonathan Diesenhaus, Hogan & Hartson LLP, Washington, DC
4:30 ADJOURN

The post Health Care Fraud Lawyers Gather to Discuss Amendments to False Claims Act and Other Whistleblower Developments appeared first on Whistleblower Lawyer Blog.