False Claims Act

Posted on Wed, 2017-05-31 15:04 by Jay P. Holland in False Claims Act

Federal government employees are often in an excellent position to know about waste, fraud and abuse in government programs and to quietly inform others of what they know in order to punish wrongdoing, spur change and save the government vast sums of money. When they inform Congress, for example, about potentially illegal or wasteful practices in their agencies, federal employees are acting as whistleblowers – and they are protected under their own whistleblower statutes.

Posted on Thu, 2017-04-27 15:52 by Veronica Nannis in False Claims Act

Some basic considerations when thinking of reporting health care fraud


Most employees never imagine reporting their employers. No one takes a job with their sights set on clandestinely gathering evidence for a government health care fraud investigation. But, anyone working in the health care field long enough knows that fraud is still rampant and it sometimes causes real patient harm. So, how does a loyal employee turn whistleblower, and what should you do if you find yourself in this position?

Posted on Thu, 2016-05-26 13:37 by Jay P. Holland in False Claims Act


Jeffrey Mills was the Director of Food and Nutritional Services for the District of Columbia Public Schools (DCPS) from 2010 to 2013.  DCPS used Chartwells, a contractor, to provide its food and food services for students in DCPS.   Mills saw enormous problems with Chartwells, including overbilling and, even worse, providing spoiled food to students.  His complaints to DCPS officials were ignored.  And when DCPS terminated his employment, he alleged that he was terminated in retaliation for blowing the whistle on Chartwells. Mills sued not only for retaliation but also for fraud against the D.C. government, under the qui tam provisions of the District of Columbia False Claims Act.   D.C. Code Ann § 2-381.03. Chartwells settled with Mills for $450,000.00 for his retaliation claim, and settled with D.C. for $19,000,000.00, 30% of which could go to Mills, and the rest to D.C. to compensate it for the overbilling and spoiled food.  https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/dc-schools-food-vendor-pays-19-million-to-settle-whistleblower-lawsuit/2015/06/05/bae8dd3c-0b96-11e5-9e39-0db921c47b93_story.html.  


Posted on Tue, 2015-01-13 12:11 by Brian J. Markovitz in False Claims Act

 


To secure to each labourer the whole product of his labour, or as nearly as possible, is a most worthy object of any good government. 
Abraham Lincoln, 1847


Government Contractor Wage TheftPresident Lincoln rightly believed that workers should get paid what they earn.  But as many of us know, stealing money from workers on government contracts by underpaying them below the prevailing wage[1] is often the industry standard. 


When unions and their members learn of prevailing wage theft, in response, one of two well-intentioned but futile actions usually are taken.  They start a very public protest campaign – either in the newspapers or by physically protesting at the jobsite/headquarters of the offending company.  Or, they file a complaint with the Department of Labor.  Most times, neither action works.  Trying to shame a shameless employer who didn’t pay people properly in the first place does not work.  And, in this government-shutdown, low-morale, underfunded era, the Department of Labor’s resources are so strapped that it often can’t force the bad actors in to compliance. 



"Death of the fraudster" by Georg Auer Hohensalzburg


Are you a Marylander?


Do you want your hard earned tax money going to companies who are defrauding the Maryland state government?


Posted on Fri, 2013-11-22 19:03 by Jeremy Schneider in Civil Litigation, False Claims Act, Labor Employment


On October 15, 2013, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit issued a False Claims Act ("FCA") judgment allowing the case to continue against Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals ("Bayer"), based on the relator’s allegations that the company fraudulently induced the Department of Defense ("DoD") to enter contracts under which a drug known as Baycol was purchased for the use of armed service men and women.


Posted on Tue, 2013-09-24 17:32 by Jeremy Schneider in Discrimination, False Claims Act, Labor Employment


Kathy:  Jeremy, I know a large part of your practice involves whistleblower law.  Do you have any thoughts or advice to pass along on this topic to our readers?


Posted on Fri, 2013-09-20 19:49 by Jay P. Holland in Discrimination, False Claims Act, Labor Employment

 


whistlehurter


This past term, the Supreme Court in University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar held that retaliation claims under Title VII are required to be decided by what is known as the “But For” causation standard.[1]  So, if an employee reports illegal discrimination or harassment based on race, sex, or other Title VII protected conduct and suffers retaliation, the Supreme Court held that the employee must show that “but for” engaging in protected activity (reporting the illegal conduct), the employee would not have suffered the adverse action (such as termination).[2]


Posted on Fri, 2013-09-13 20:08 by Jeremy Schneider in Discrimination, False Claims Act, Labor Employment


Kathy:  Every year brings new legislation that impacts American employers and employees.  Are there any game-changing laws that have been passed or that are on the horizon for 2013?


Posted on Wed, 2013-08-21 16:02 by Brian J. Markovitz in False Claims Act, Labor Employment


The False Claims Act (FCA), originally conceived by Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War, has been an effective tool for the Government to recover funds fraudulently taken from all types of government programs from national security to Medicare for over a century and a half.  But like all statutes, the FCA has its limitations, including time.  Until recently, it was believed that with little exception fraudulently taken taxpayer funds could be recovered only for a period of six years prior to the filing of a complaint.  31 U.S.C. § 3731(b).


Contact

The use of the Internet or this form for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be sent through this form.

Disclaimer

The JGL Law Blog is made available by the Firm and/or the law firm publisher for educational purposes only as well as to give you general information and a general understanding of the law. The JGL Law Blog is not designed to and does not provide specific legal advice. Use of, or comments on, this Blog does not create an Attorney Client Relationship with the Firm or any of the authors of the Blog Posts.

This blog is for general informational purposes only. Joseph, Greenwald & Laake, PA is a law firm and some of the information on the blog relates to legal topics. Joseph, Greenwald & Laake, PA does not offer or dispense legal advice through this blog or by e-mails directed to or from this site. By using the blog, the reader agrees that the information on this blog does not constitute legal or other professional advice and no attorney-client or other relationship is created between the reader and Joseph, Greenwald & Laake, PA or its attorneys. The blog is not a substitute for obtaining legal advice from a qualified attorney licensed in your state. The information on the blog may be changed without notice and is not guaranteed to be complete, correct or up-to-date. While the blog is revised on a regular basis, it may not reflect the most current legal developments. The opinions expressed at or through the blog are the opinions of the individual author and may not reflect the opinions of the firm or any individual attorney. The JGL Law Blog should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed professional attorney in your state.

To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the U.S. Internal Revenue Service in Circular 230, we inform you that any tax advice contained on this site (including any links provided) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the U.S. Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing, or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed in this communication.

˅