Jump to Navigation

Boston Whistleblower Law Blog

Second time's a charm for False Claims Act guilty verdict

As we have discussed on our blog, the federal government is continuing to be aggressive with prosecuting companies under the False Claims Act. In many cases, the allegations are settled prior to a trial taking place; regardless of whether or not the damages are awarded via a settlement or from a positive jury verdict, a whistleblower is still entitled to claim part of the money for bringing the case to the government's attention.

A recent case out of Sumter, South Carolina, has exposed a hospital that made false Medicare claims. The hospital was accused of signing doctors to part-time contracts so that the hospital would receive the referral fees from the procedures the doctors performed; the hospital then paid the doctors with part of those referral funds.

Ranbaxy Settlement: False Claims Act Liability for Violating FDA Good Manufacturing Practices Regulations

Monday the United States of Department of Justice announced a $350 million False Claims Act settlement with Indian generic drug maker Ranbaxy, as well as criminal charges, a $130 million criminal fine and a $20 million forfeiture.

New Frontiers in False Claims Act Litigation: Liability for Fraud Related to ObamaCare's Health Insurance Exchanges

When Congress passed ObamaCare, it included enhanced False Claims Act liability and penalties for those who commit fraud against the Health Insurance Exchanges that are a central component of the health care reform legislation enacted in 2010. The law requires each State to establish an "American Health Benefits Exchange" ("Exchange") by January 1, 2014. See the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, March 23, 2010 ("PPACA"), Pub. L. 111-148, Sections 1311-1313, 1321, codified at 42 U.S.C. §§ 18031, 18041, colloquially known as "ObamaCare"). In very basic terms, an Exchange is a state-regulated entity from which certain individuals will be eligible to purchase health insurance that is subsidized by the federal government. The concept is that these Exchanges will offer consumers more choices and bargaining power while allowing private insurance companies to compete for the business; in other words, a competitive marketplace. The government will subsidize insurance premiums for individuals with income up to 400% of the poverty line, as well as single adults. The subsidy will be provided as an advanceable, refundable tax credit, and is based on a formula and the type of plan chosen. Recognizing the potential for fraud, Congress took steps to ensure federal False Claims Act liability for fraud involving any federal monies in the Exchanges, and enacted enhanced damages/ penalties provisions. Among these are adding a penalty of 3-6 times the damages to the standard FCA treble damages and $5,500-$11,000 penalty per false claim or violation. In other words, someone found liable for violating the FCA with respect to the Exchanges would have to pay 6-9 times damages plus the penalties per false claim. Hopefully this enhanced liability will provide a deterrent to would be fraudsters as well as an incentive for whistleblowers to come forward with information of wrongdoing. Both will be necessary to help ensure the success and cost effectiveness of ObamaCare. All of this is explored further in the article attached hereto.

Medicare suit: Patients were playing bingo, not receiving care

Medicare fraud is one of the chief targets of lawsuits filed under the False Claims Act. In many cases, organizations that are allegedly committing fraud via fraudulent billing processes would go undetected without a whistleblower to alert the government to possible wrongdoing.

One of the latest cases involves the largest chain for-profit hospice services in the United States with facilities in 18 states and in Washington, D.C. The lawsuit alleges that the companies, Chemed Corporation and its subsidiaries Vitas Hospice Services and Vitas Healthcare Corporation, billed Medicare for false claims.

False Claims Act and FIRREA Mortgage Fraud Case Against Wells Fargo and Bank of America/Countrywide Gets a Boost

As we have previously discussed, the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York sued Wells Fargo and Bank of America/Countrywide for residential mortgage fraud using both the False Claims Act and the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989, 12 U.S.C. § 1833a (FIRREA). FIRREA was passed during the financial crisis that was the savings and loan debacle of the late 1980's and proved to be a very effective tool for prosecutors. In the last year or so, the law has been rediscovered, taken from the shelf, dusted off and put back into battle by the Justice Department.

The False Claims Act and the Financial Restitutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989: Two Potent Weapons in the Government's War on Residential Mortgage Fraud

While there has been much criticism of the Justice Department's failure to convict individuals and its apparent "too big to fail" philosophy when it comes to the financial crisis, there is a silver lining: in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in Manhattan, there are several cases that have held banks accountable and others are pending. In these cases, the False Claims Act (FCA) and the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989 (FIRREA) are the primary civil statutes being wielded by the government as it seeks to recover the billions of dollars in losses from residential mortgage fraud. So far, these statutes have been used in cases alleging reckless lending that caused large losses on loans insured by the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), the Veterans Administration (VA), and other federal agencies, as well as on loans sold by banks and other lenders to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Kickbacks Lead to False Claims Act Settlements with Florida Dermatologist and Pathology Lab Totaling Over $27 Million

A Florida dermatologist and a pathology lab and its owner have settled a False Claims Act qui tam lawsuit for over $27 million. According to the Department of Justice (DOJ), Steven J. Wasserman, M.D., a Florida Dermatologist practicing in Venice, will pay $26.1 million to resolve allegations that he violated the False Claims Act by accepting illegal kickbacks from a pathology laboratory and by billing the Medicare program for medically unnecessary services. In addition, the pathology lab, Tampa Pathology Laboratory (TPL), a clinical laboratory in Tampa, Florida, and Dr. José Suarez Hoyos, a pathologist and the owner of TPL, settled kickback allegations under the FCA for $950,000 to resolve the allegations asserted against them in the same lawsuit. According to DOJ, the settlement with Dr. Wasserman is one of the largest with an individual under the False Claims Act in U.S. history. The whistleblower case was filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida by Alan Freedman, M.D., a pathologist who formerly worked at TPL. The United States intervened in the case, filing its own complaint in October 2010. According to DOJ, Dr. Freedman will receive a relator's share of at least $4,046,000.

Oklahoma whistleblowers file suit over alleged bilking of feds

The False Claims Act continues to do its job, 150 years after its entry onto the American legal scene. One of the latest uses of the law by whistleblowers involves allegations made against trustees of the Lead-Impacted Communities Relocation Assistance Trust, which received federal money to raze or move buildings in three towns in Oklahoma that were deemed to be hazardous for people to live due to contamination from decades of mining in the area.

The whistleblower lawsuit contends that trustees billed the government for tearing down several buildings that it did not actually tear down. One such example seems easy to prove because it involves a building connected to a local celebrity that is very definitely still standing.

Prosecutors Use False Claims Act to Snare Amgen and Novartis in Pharmacy Kickback Schemes. Who is Next?

The False Claims Act is being used to go after large drug manufacturers who are paying kickbacks to pharmacies, including Omnicare, to fill prescriptions using the manufacturers' drugs over competitors. In the last two weeks federal prosecutors have announced an FCA settlement with Amgen, and the filing of an FCA complaint against Novartis.  The federal Medicare-Medicaid Anti-Kickback Act makes it illegal to offer or receive kickbacks in health care programs such as Medicare or Medicaid, and illegal kickbacks can make any claim for payment to a government health care program a "false claim" in violation of the False Claims Act.

Armstrong case could get new exposure under False Claims Act

In many whistleblower cases, the alleged violations of the False Claims Act are attributed to companies or people that are not well known to the public. However, that is most definitely not the case in a complaint the federal government has made accusing Lance Armstrong, the disgraced cyclist, of false claims, unjust enrichment and fraud against the government. (See our earlier blog on this subject.) Armstrong's cycling team, Tailwind Sports, had a contract with the U.S. postal service to sponsor the team; according to the government, Tailwind used some of the money the government paid to the team to pay nearly $18 million to Armstrong.

According to the government's allegations, members of the team repeatedly lied about members of the team engaging in doping -- allegations that Armstrong, after years of denials, finally confirmed in a television interview earlier this year. He was stripped of his Tour de France victories as well as an Olympic medal. He rode for the U.S. Postal Service-branded team between 1999 and 2004. Ironically, the whistleblower who stands to get a reward in this case -- should it reach a successful conclusion for the government -- is Floyd Landis.

Contact Us | Act Now

Bold labels are required.

Contact Information
disclaimer.

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.

close
Subscribe to This Blog's Feed Visit Our Whistleblower Website