Articles Posted in State False Claims Acts

With the nation’s health care costs growing, a DOJ and HHS initiative to combat health care fraud continues to show progress.

Building on past enforcement efforts, in May 2009 the government announced its Health Care Fraud Prevention and Enforcement Action Team (HEAT), as part of what is now a Cabinet-level battle against Medicare fraud. To date in FY 2009, the Department of Justice has recovered close to one billion dollars in health care fraud cases, and has obtained 300 convictions.

Last week, the government announced that its Medicare Fraud Strike Force has charged twenty California defendants with $26 million in Medicare fraud from the sale of durable medical equipment (DME). That same week, the government charged six Houston area residents with participating in a scheme to submit claims to Medicare for medically unnecessary DME.

Defrauding the government of taxpayer dollars has gotten tougher over the past five months.

Important changes to the nation’s primary anti-fraud statute, the False Claims Act, took effect on May 20, 2009, when the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009 became law.

Among the most significant changes, Congress clarified and corrected the False Claims Act by legislatively overruling certain court decisions that sought to limit the scope of the Act, 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).

These important 2009 changes to the False Claims Act include the following:

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

2. Funds administered by the United States government (such as in Iraq) are now protected.

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

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

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 investigating, 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 to allow the government to assert its own claims, after the whistleblower (or “relator”) has filed a qui tam case under the False Claims Act.

Click here for a detailed discussion of the False Claims Act and the wave of new State False Claims Acts.

The amended False Claims Act is reprinted below, in its entirety:
Continue reading

At the “Advanced Health Law” seminar on October 9, attorneys prosecuting and defending cases of alleged health care fraud will discuss the important new amendments to the False Claims Act. I am honored to be the panelist who will discuss these important new provisions from the perspective of representing whistleblowers (known as “relators”) who bring qui tam whistleblower cases under the False Claims Act.

These significant changes to the False Claims Act took effect on May 20, 2009, when the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009 became law. Among the most important changes, Congress corrected and clarified the False Claims Act by legislatively overruling certain court decisions that sought to limit the scope of the Act, 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 False Claims Act, as amended, now has these provisions:

In one of two prominent whistleblower cases in the news this week, whistleblower John Kopchinski will be awarded more than $50 million for his role in exposing improper “off-label marketing” of the drug Bextra by Pfizer. Other whistleblowers also will be rewarded because of this settlement. That settlement of $2.3 billion is the largest in history ($1 billion to settle False Claims Act allegations, and $1.3 billion in criminal fine and forfeiture).

As large as the Pfizer settlement is, the other whistleblower’s actions seem likely to lead to recovery of dollars that could dwarf this $2.3 billion settlement. UBS whistleblower Bradley Birkenfeld has lifted the shroud of secrecy from thousands of American taxpayers’ offshore accounts at UBS. He has given the IRS a foothold into recovering potentially many billions in unpaid taxes owed.

Yet Birkenfeld was recently sentenced to serve 40 months in federal prison for conspiracy to defraud the United States in a tax fraud scheme while at UBS. His conviction also calls into question his ability to receive a reward under the IRS Whistleblower Program from the billions to be collected by the IRS.

How could this happen?

There are tried and true steps lawyers representing whistleblowers must take to protect their clients from the risk of prosecution. This was one of the topics of the “IRS Whistleblower Boot Camp” panel discussion that I led this past March, with panelists including IRS Whistleblower Office Director Steve Whitlock–how to protect the whistleblower who has potential criminal liability, but who has valuable information.

If adequate protection cannot be obtained, often the whistleblower with real criminal exposure should choose not to go forward. If the information is important enough to the government, however, protection for the whistleblower often can be negotiated, so long as the whistleblower is truthful and forthcoming. As former federal prosecutors who have also defended clients in white collar criminal prosecutions, we have represented many clients in obtaining this type of protection.
Continue reading

We have followed closely the trend of states enacting their own versions of the nation’s chief whistleblower law the False Claims Act. North Carolina has become the newest state to enact its own False Claims Act, which is reprinted below.

We congratulate the State of North Carolina on a momentous accomplishment.
Continue reading

At the 20th Annual Convention of NELA, the National Employment Lawyers Association, I recently had the pleasure of moderating a panel discussion of some of the country’s top “whistleblower” lawyers. The topic was “The Most Pressing Issues in Representing Whistleblowers.”

Joining me in this panel discussion were Richard Renner and David J. Marshall. Richard is an attorney with Kohn & Colapinto in Washington, DC. and also serves as Legal Director of the National Whistleblowers Center. David is a partner with Katz, Marshall & Banks, LLP in DC.

The discussion included:

New legislation to combat financial institution fraud, securities fraud, mortgage fraud, and other fraud and abuse is gaining momentum, and brings closer long-needed amendments to restore to its intended strength the nation’s major “whistleblower” law, the False Claims Act.

The Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009 (S. 386) received support yesterday in a statement from the Administration:

The Administration strongly supports enactment of S. 386. Its provisions would provide Federal investigators and prosecutors with significant new criminal and civil tools and resources that would assist in holding accountable those who have committed financial fraud.

I am very excited about co-chairing the Annual “Whistleblower Law Symposium” once again this week.

From Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, New Orleans, San Antonio, and Washington, D.C., many of the country’s leading attorneys in whistleblower cases under the “qui tam” statute, the False Claims Act, the Sarbanes-Oxley statute, and the IRS Whistleblower Program will gather in Atlanta on March 4 to discuss some of the more challenging aspects of representing whistleblowers (or defending against whistleblower claims) under these laws.

We are honored to have one of the officials of the IRS Whistleblower Office, Dawn Applebaum, join us in person to discuss the progress of the new IRS Whistleblower Rewards Program. The IRS Whistleblower Office has just celebrated its second anniversary.

We are also privileged to have the top state enforcement officials in health care fraud cases from Texas, Florida, and Georgia, to explain how they coordinate state and federal health care fraud whistleblower cases under the federal and state False Claims Acts.

Also joining us is Rep. Edward Lindsey, the Legislative Sponsor both of the Georgia State False Medicaid Claims Act, and recent legislation to solidify Georgia’s Office of State Inspector General.

Because of the wave of new whistleblower statutes that have been inspired by the successes of the False Claims Act, our firm instituted the Whistleblower Law Symposium. Once again, top-notch speakers will address a broad variety of issues that arise under these whistleblower laws, including:

–Whistleblowers in Health Care: Recent Cases and Strategies for Healthcare Providers and Counsel When a Whistleblower Calls

–Recent Developments in Qui Tam Cases Under the False Claims Act-The Relator’s Perspective
–Current Issues in Defending Qui Tam Claims
–Coordinating State and Federal Whistleblower Cases Under the State and Federal False Claims Acts-Current Priorities and Recent Results
–Federal Priorities and Procedures in Qui Tam Cases
–Plaintiffs’ & Defendants’ Approaches to Sarbanes-Oxley Claims
–Update on the IRS Whistleblower Program

We are fortunate to have such excellent faculty members from around the country join us. Our faculty members and their topics are listed below.
Continue reading

Hidden schemes to defraud Medicare and state Medicaid programs of scarce taxpayer dollars are at the heart of many whistleblower cases under the federal and state False Claims Acts.

This morning, Wisconsin Attorney General J. B. Van Hollen announced that a Dane County, Wisconsin jury has just declared that a pharmaceutical manufacturer defrauded the Wisconsin Medicaid program by reporting grossly inflated and fraudulent prices.

Pfizer was on the receiving end of the health care fraud verdict, which may result in more than $153 million in damages based on alleged practices by Pharmacia (which Pfizer had acquired). The AG reportedly cited a 1993 internal memo in which a pharma employee wrote that “three decades of gaming the present reimbursement scheme has provided a lucrative avenue of profit.”

In our former life as lawyers defending False Claims Act cases, our defendant clients had to consider whether the payments made to settle qui tam cases under the False Claims Act were deductible for tax purposes, and to what extent.

The IRS recently issued a paper on the subject: whether a defendant’s payment to the Department of Justice to resolve False Claims Act allegations is “deductible in its entirety as a section 162(a) ordinary and necessary business expense, or includes non-deductible penalty amounts under section 162(f).”

This paper, LMSB-4-0908-045, is reproduced below:
Continue reading