Whistleblower Blog

Will Your State Have a State False Claims Act?

January 23, 2007
Michael Sullivan

Finch McCranie, LLP has recently learned that many state government officials, including Governor Perdue of Georgia, have received a proposed State False Claims Act for consideration to be enacted in 2007. Even though the Bill has been drafted and is on his desk, at present, the Bill has not been submitted to the Legislature for consideration. Obviously, this raises a serious question as to why it is that the Governor is delaying action on this important piece of legislation.

Section 1909 of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 creates a financial incentive for states to enact legislation that establishes liability to the state for individuals or entities that submit false or fraudulent claims to a state Medicaid program. This incentive takes the form of an increase in the state’s share of any amounts recovered from a state action brought under a “qualifying law.” In order for a state to qualify for this incentive, the state law must meet certain enumerated requirements as determined by the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services in consultation with the Attorney General. The Office of Inspector General has already ruled in several different cases that certain states have not enacted “qualified laws” and therefore do not qualify for the increase share of fraud recoveries which can amount to a ten (10%) percent increase over amounts currently being received by the states. Thus, if the Governor is to act, it is imperative that he submit a “qualified law” to the Legislature for its consideration. In essence, a “qualified law” is one that is as strong and effective in its qui tam whistleblower provisions, and other features, as the Federal False Claims Act.

As we see it, there is no good reason for the Governor not to submit this proposed legislation for consideration. If he is to do so, however, he should first submit the proposed legislation to the Office of Inspector General as the Office of Inspector General will advise the State whether it “qualifies” for the increased share of fraud recoveries. Indeed, the OIG is required to consider whether the state law is, at least, as effective in rewarding and facilitating Qui Tam actions when compared to the provisions of the Federal False Claims Act. In order to request a OIG review of the state law, the Governor should submit a complete copy of the proposed legislation to the Office of Inspector General Department of Health and Human Services, Cohen Building, Mail Stop 5527, 330 Independence Avenue, S. W., Washington, DC 20201, Attn: Roderick Chen, Office of Counsel to the Inspector General.

(more…)

Significant 2006 Verdicts and Settlements of Qui Tam Whistleblower Cases Under the False Claims Act

January 22, 2007
Michael Sullivan

In our multi-part explanation of the federal False Claims Act previously posted, we have summarized the most recent verdicts and settlements of qui tam whistleblower cases (as of December 2006).

We will continue to update you on additional verdicts and settlements of significance.

The Whistleblower Statute: The Text of the False Claims Act

January 22, 2007
Michael Sullivan

We have tried to explain what readers may want to know about how the whistleblower statute works, in our article explaining the False Claims Act. Here is the current language of this law that creates rewards for qui tam whistleblowers:

FALSE CLAIMS ACT
TITLE 31. MONEY AND FINANCE
SUBTITLE III. FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT
CHAPTER 37. CLAIMS
SUBCHAPTER III. CLAIMS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT

3729. False claims

(a) Liability for certain acts. Any person who–

(1) knowingly presents, or causes to be presented, to an officer or employee of the United States Government or a member of the Armed Forces of the United States a false or fraudulent claim for payment or approval;

(2) knowingly makes, uses, or causes to be made or used, a false record or statement to get a false or fraudulent claim paid or approved by the Government;

(3) conspires to defraud the Government by getting a false or fraudulent claim allowed or paid;

(more…)

No More Gifts For Doctors

January 22, 2007
Michael Sullivan

The International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and Associations revised its Code of Ethics on January 1 of this year for the first time in a decade. Under the newly revised Code of Ethics, members of the trade group which represents pharmaceutical companies worldwide may no longer provide “expensive gifts” or paid trips to physicians. While the code allows members to provide physicians with gifts that are related to prescription drugs that are inexpensive such as pens, paperweights, stethoscopes and other de mini’s gifts, the new

(more…)

New Compliance and Education Reforms Take Effect

January 22, 2007
Michael Sullivan

In February, 2006, President Bush signed into law the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (DRA). An obscure provision within this Act mandates that entities receiving greater than $5 million per year in Medicaid payments must educate their employees about “whistleblower” claims under the Federal False Claims Act. Under the DRA, effective January 1, 2007, as a requirement of continued eligibility for the receipt of Medicaid payments, any entity receiving annual payments of $5 million or more in Medicaid funds must have mandatory compliance and education programs in place for its employees to provide detailed information about the Federal False Claims Act. This education must include information provided to employees about administrative remedies, state laws pertaining to civil or criminal penalties, whistleblower protections, and the role of such laws in preventing and detecting fraud, waste, and abuse in federally funded healthcare programs.
Congress has clearly recognized that the government has a strong need to contain costs through increased fraud and abuse enforcement. Medicaid spending, like Medicare spending, is exponentially increasing. Medicaid enrollment increased from ten (10) million beneficiaries in 1967 to over 44.7 million beneficiaries in 2006 according to statistics published by the United States Department of Health and Human Services. Along with this increase in beneficiaries, Medicaid expenditures have also dramatically increased. In fiscal year 2005 Medicaid expenditures approximated twenty percent (20%) of total federal outlays.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) in its fiscal year report for 2005 documented that $484.3 billion had been spent in the fiscal year 2005. Given this staggering amount of money, and because the percentage of the total federal outlay was expected to exceed twenty percent (20%) of the total federal budget, Congress enacted the mandatory employee education provisions about false claims recovery to encourage whistleblower lawsuits and, hopefully, thereby decrease fraud and abuse.

In addition to providing written policies for all employees, the mandatory policies and compliance programs must include detailed provisions regarding the employer’s policies and procedures for detecting and preventing fraud, waste and abuse. The written policies must include a specific discussion of federal and applicable state False Claims Acts, and the rights of employees to be protected from retaliation as whistleblowers. Ironically, as of the effective date of this provision, there is no state False Claims Act in Georgia. This is very discouraging. Nonetheless, this too may change depending upon the actions of the Georgia Legislature when it meets in 2007.

Section 6031 of the Deficit Reduction Act encouraged the enactment of state False Claims Acts by providing financial incentives for states to enact laws dealing with false or fraudulent claims (specifically including Medicaid claims) that parallel the federal False Claims Act. All states that enact state False Claims Acts are eligible for a ten percent (10%) increase in their share of Medicaid fraud recoveries. Many states have already availed themselves of this opportunity to participate in an increase share of Medicaid fraud recoveries but Georgia has yet to pass such legislation. Whether it will do so, of course, depends upon Governor Perdue and the Republican controlled State House and Senate.

(more…)

Tax Whistleblower Rewards Increase

January 22, 2007
Michael Sullivan

We are excited that, in December 2006, Congress dramatically increased the “rewards” to whistleblowers under the IRS Whistleblower rewards program. Whistleblowers now can receive up to 30% of the taxes, interest, and penalties that the IRS recovers based on information furnished by a whistleblower in large tax cases.

For years, the Internal Revenue Service has been authorized to pay informants reporting tax fraud a percentage of any back due taxes collected. Usually the maximum percentage was approximately fifteen (15%) percent of the back tax recovered.

The new whistleblower reform provisions passed by Congress have changed this maximum, and now allow the Internal Revenue Service to consider not only the back tax amount, but also interest and penalties. Given the amounts of money involved, and depending on the passage of time, the fines, penalties and interest in addition to the tax could be significant.

Moreover, the law changes the amount that goes to the informant from a fifteen (15%) percent cap to a thirty (30%) percent cap of all collected proceeds which again includes penalties, interest and the back tax. The new provisions also allow an above-the-line deduction for attorney’s fees and cost paid by and on behalf of the individual in connection with any award for providing information regarding violations of the tax laws. The Internal Revenue Service must now create a Whistleblower Office within the IRS to administer the mandatory reward program.

Congress will require a yearly report to the Secretary of Treasury regarding the effectiveness of any reward program implemented by the IRS. Congress estimates that these new provisions will raise $33 million over the next five years which is but a small fraction of the under reported income in the United States each year. Nonetheless, it is an improvement over existing procedures.

(more…)

Will Whistleblower Tax Reforms Produce Results?

January 22, 2007
Michael Sullivan

The Federal False Claims Act has been recognized as the government’s most effective tool for combating fraud and waste in government programs. According to the Justice Department, false claims act recoveries for the fiscal year 2006 exceeded 3 billion dollars. Unfortunately, the whistleblower reward program utilized by the Internal Revenue Service can hardly be characterized as being so successful. Since new IRS reward reform measures were enacted by Congress, we have been giving thought to the crucial question of whether the IRS will be successful in implementing its new informant reward program. Statistics available from the IRS are hardly encouraging. Between fiscal year 2001 and 2005, a paltry $27.3 million was paid by the Internal Revenue Service to informants as rewards. The average individual reward was around $24,000.00. When we compare this to the results achieved under the Federal False Claims Act, obviously, the disparity in results is staggering which is probably why it is that Congress recently acted to encourage the Internal Revenue Service to reform its whistleblower program. The real question is whether the Internal Revenue Service is up to the job and whether it will learn lessons from the success of its other federal agencies in combating taxpayer fraud and abuse.

(more…)

Addressing Contractor Fraud and Abuse in Iraq

January 22, 2007
Michael Sullivan

According to the Congressional Research Service, the United States has spent to date over $437 billion on the Iraq War. An additional $100 billion is estimated to be spent this year. While much of the money, obviously, goes for troops, a great deal of these amounts has gone to civilian contractors involved in reconstruction efforts in Iraq. But where has the money gone and who is accounting for its proper use?

According to Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont, “Eventually we’re going to have a bill

(more…)

The CMS Clarifies the Mandatory Whistleblower Reforms

January 22, 2007
Michael Sullivan

The salutary intent of the Deficit Reduction Act was to require that employers educate employees about the Federal False Claims Act and, hopefully, address fraud and abuse by employer entities receiving $5 million dollars or more in federal funds under the Medicaid program. When the Deficit Reduction Act was passed in 2005, a debate emerged about whether the DRA education provisions mandating employee education about the Federal False Claims Act applied directly to healthcare providers and/or whether states receiving Medicaid had to pass implementing legislation to make the provision effective. In December of 2006, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) set the record straight. An “entity” includes a government agency, organization, unit, corporation, partnership or other business arrangement (including any Medicaid managed care organization, irrespective of the form of business structural or arrangement by which it exists) whether for profit or not for profit, which receives or makes payments under a state plan approved under Title XIX or under any waiver of such plan, totaling at least $5 million annually. In short, states do not have to implement legislation to make the provision effective and any entity receiving $5 million or more annually in Medicaid benefits must implement the mandatory education provision.

(more…)

Where Is the Oversight?

January 22, 2007
Michael Sullivan

Just before Christmas I read an article about a case in Texas where a doctor was sentenced to a lengthy prison term for a scheme to defraud Medicare and Medicaid in excess of $25 million. The doctor had been approached by individuals offering to pay him a kickback for supplying Certificates of Medical Necessity (CMN) approving a beneficiary to receive a motorized wheelchair. I have been watching TV and seeing these adds for sometime about scooters for disabled individuals and I was wondering how so

(more…)

Search

Topics

Our Other Blog

IRS Whistleblower Rewards to Convicted UBS Whistleblower Birkenfeld? The Rule of Law Will Sort It Out.

November 28, 2009
Michael Sullivan

In “Protecting Whistleblowers from Criminal Prosecution,” we expressed our amazement at how UBS “whistleblower” Brad Birkenfeld got himself prosecuted for a federal felony while attempting to set himself up for rewards through the new IRS Whistleblower Program. Birkenfeld’s case is highlighted in recent articles by Lynnley Browning in Friday’s New York Times and by Martha Brannigan in Saturday’s Miami Herald.

To attorneys with prosecution experience who represent whistleblowers, it is shocking that Birkenfeld apparently missed a clear opportunity to avoid prosecution altogether by simply “coming clean” and telling the whole truth about his own actions at the outset.

We have a much different take on Birkenfeld’s case than those who suggest it should scare away potential IRS whistleblowers. Whistleblowers who are willing to tell the truth from the start can easily avoid Birkenfeld’s fate, so long as they follow the law and counsel’s advice to disclose all. At the same time, we take issue with critics who say Birkenfeld should not even be considered for an IRS Whistleblower reward, since the “rule of law” should determine the answer to that question.

First, Birkenfeld’s case should make other potential IRS whistleblowers careful about pursuing IRS whistleblower claims, but not fearful. Most IRS whistleblowers face no realistic chance of prosecution, especially since the government often must depend on whistleblower information to make cases.

Even those relatively few whistleblowers with possible exposure such as Birkenfeld (who admitted to engaging in a tax fraud scheme) can often negotiate protection from prosecution, but only if they tell the whole truth from the start, and follow the rules for obtaining protection. This was a topic in 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 exposure.

Why Birkenfeld apparently thought he could get away with withholding information from the government about his own wrongdoing–a foolish move to us–remains a mystery, even after we reviewed his sentencing transcript. That horrendous judgment call distinguishes Birkenfeld’s case from all other whistleblower cases we have seen.

At Birkenfeld’s sentencing, prosecutor Kevin Downing explained that Birkenfeld’s information was extremely valuable to the IRS, and that Birkenfeld probably would not have been prosecuted had he simply been forthcoming by disclosing his own misconduct in assisting tax evasion:

“BUT FOR MR. BIRKENFELD FAILING TO DISCLOSE HIS INVOLVEMENT WITH THE FRAUD AND THE U.S. CLIENTS THAT HE AIDED AND ASSISTED IN TAX EVASION, I BELIEVE WE WELL WOULD HAVE NONPROSECUTED MR. BIRKENFELD. BUT GIVEN THE FACT THAT HE REFUSED TO PROVIDE THAT INFORMATION AND LED US DOWN A COURSE WHERE WE HAD TO START [TO] INVESTIGATE MR. BIRKENFELD AND HIS ACTIVITIES, THAT IS WHY WE ARE HERE TODAY, THAT IS WHY HE WAS INDICTED, AND THAT’S WHY HE PLED.” (Birkenfeld Sentencing Tr. 12-13)(emphasis supplied).
(more…)

IRS “Voluntary Disclosure” Program Inundated by More Than 14,000 Taxpayers

November 17, 2009
Michael Sullivan

We have followed with great interest the IRS Voluntary Disclosure Program, especially after the UBS settlement created fear of discovery in many U.S. taxpayers with offshore accounts.

IRS Commissioner Doug Shulman announced that the IRS Voluntary Disclosure Program was flooded with submissions by more than 14,000 taxpayers, according to the Wall Street Journal.

IRS Whistleblower cases have been impacted–and in some cases probably pre-empted–by the submissions of recalcitrant taxpayers to the IRS Voluntary Disclosure Program. The IRS Criminal Investigative Division in certain areas
(more…)

New SEC Whistleblower Rewards and Whistleblower Protections Approved by House Committee–But Improvements Are Needed

November 9, 2009
Michael Sullivan

Since the Madoff and Stanford schemes proved ruinous to so many investors, many have asked why the SEC has no meaningful “whistleblower” program to expose wrongdoing, a topic we have written about previously.

Perhaps Harry Markopolis’ voice is finally being heard, albeit faintly. Last week, the House Financial Services Committee approved legislation that would expand both whistleblower rewards and whistleblower protections, among other things.

Still, past experience with the False Claims Act and the IRS Whistleblower statute shows that the proposed rewards need to be beefed up to be effective.

The “Investor Protection Act of 2009” (excerpted below) also would increase the SEC’s budget and make other changes designed to strengthen enforcement.

The new rewards to whistleblowers would be up to 30% of monetary sanctions of more than $1 million:

(more…)

New ‘‘Health Care Fraud Enforcement Act of 2009’’ Includes Health Care Whistleblower Provisions Aimed at Kickbacks

October 30, 2009
Michael Sullivan

The battle against those who steal taxpayer dollars through Medicare fraud and other health care fraud took a step forward this week. The Senate is now considering the “Health Care Fraud Enforcement Act,” which will enhance the government’s tools used to investigate and remedy Medicare and Medicaid fraud.

After a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Wednesday on “Effective Strategies for Preventing Health Care Fraud,” Senators Leahy, Kaufman, Specter, Kohl, Schumer, and Klobuchar sponsored the new anti-fraud measure.

Excerpts of the Senate announcement follow:

The bill makes straightforward but critical improvements to the federal sentencing guidelines, to health care fraud statutes, and to forfeiture, money laundering, and obstruction statutes, all of which would strengthen prosecutors’ ability to combat this particularly destructive form of fraud. These improvements include:

o Sentencing increases: The bill directs the Sentencing Commission to increase the guidelines range for health care fraud offenses and clarifies that the full potential scope of the fraud should be considered at sentencing.

o Redefining “health care fraud offense”: The bill includes all health care crimes within the definition of “health care fraud offense,” regardless of where they are codified. (ERISA, drug marketing, and kickback crimes are currently not included) This change will make available to law enforcement the full range of antifraud tools, including criminal forfeiture and obstruction penalties, to combat these offenses.

o Improving whistleblower claims: Kickbacks lead to unnecessary and risky medical care and pervert the doctor-patient relationship. This bill clarifies that all payments made pursuant to illegal kickbacks are false for purposes of the False Claims Act.

o Creating a common-sense mental state requirement for health care fraud offenses: Some courts have held that defendants must be aware that their conduct violates a specific provision of criminal law in order to be held accountable. This bill restores the original intent of Congress that a person is guilty of a health care offense if he knowingly does what the law forbids.

o Increasing funding: Money spent on health care fraud prevention and enforcement is returned manifold through costs savings and civil and criminal recoveries. This bill authorizes a modest, yet significant, increase in federal antifraud spending of $20,000,000 per year through 2016.

The new bill would add to legislation earlier this year to strengthen law enforcement statutes aimed at fraud, the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act.

Of particular importance to qui tam whistleblower cases under the False Claims Act, the nation’s major whistleblower law, the new bill removes any ambiguity that “kickbacks” violate the False Claims Act. The official summary discusses kickbacks in section 2(c):

Section 2(c). Kickbacks
All too often, health care providers secure business by paying illegal kickbacks, which needlessly increase health care risks and costs. When a doctor’s independent judgment is compromised by a kickback, the patient faces the risk that the doctor is making decisions that are not in the patient’s best interest. In addition, excessive payments to doctors increase health care costs, may result in unfair competition, and may compromise medical research independence and the standards of scientific integrity.

The Department of Justice has had success both prosecuting illegal kickbacks and pursuing False Claims Act (FCA) matters predicated on underlying violations of the Anti-Kickback Statute (AKS). Nevertheless, defendants in such FCA cases continue to mount legal challenges. A court recently held that, even though a device company may have paid a kickback to a doctor to use a particular medical device, the bill for the procedure to implant the device was not false because the claim was submitted by the innocent hospital, and not by the doctor. United States ex rel. Thomas v. Bailey, 2008 WL 4853630 (E.D. Ark.) (Nov. 6, 2008). In other words, a claim that results from a kickback and that is false when submitted by a wrongdoer is laundered into a “clean” claim when an innocent third party finally submits the claim to the government for payment. This has the effect of insulating both the payor and the recipient of the kickback from FCA liability. This obstacle to a successful FCA action particularly limits Department’s ability to recover from pharmaceutical and device manufacturers, because in such instances the claims arising from the illegal kickbacks typically are not submitted by the physicians that received the kickbacks, but by pharmacies and hospitals that had no knowledge of the underlying unlawful conduct.

This section remedies the problem by amending the AKS to ensure that all claims resulting from illegal kickbacks are false, even when the claims are not submitted directly by the wrongdoers themselves. (Notably, in such circumstances, neither AKS nor FCA liability will lie against an innocent third party that submitted the claim but lacked the requisite intent required under those statutes.)

The full text of the bill is below:
(more…)

Health Care Fraud Strike Force Targets Medicare and Medicaid Fraud

October 25, 2009
Michael Sullivan

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
(more…)

New False Claims Act Amendments Strengthen Enforcement of Health Care Fraud and Procurement Fraud Laws

October 25, 2009
Michael Sullivan

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.

(more…)

Part 2: IRS Whistleblower Program Report by Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA)

October 8, 2009
Michael Sullivan

We wrote yesterday about the just-released report on the new IRS Whistleblower Program by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA). The “rest of the story” should be told.

Some history is essential to evaluate how far the handling of whistleblower (or “informant”) claims has progressed since the newly created IRS Whistleblower Office was formed in early 2007, and what is still needed.

Although information provided by whistleblowers is extremely effective in exposing fraud, before 2006 Congress had not authorized an effective IRS whistleblower rewards program–and some in Congress affirmatively opposed one.

Some of this history is described in a 2006 report by TIGTA, which helped prompt Congress to create the new IRS Whistleblower Rewards Program. That 2006 report described the value of informant claims–and also the absence of any centralized process within the IRS for coordinating those claims. It described what the new IRS Whistleblower Office Director and still-to-be-hired staff would inherit in February 2007.

First, the 2006 IG Report leaves no doubt about how valuable “informant” information has been to the IRS–even when there was no coordination of informant claims:

The Informants’ Rewards Program has significantly contributed to the IRS’ efforts to enforce tax laws, but additional management focus could enhance the effectiveness of the Program as an enforcement tool and make the process more accommodating to informants. Our analysis of IRS data indicated that examinations initiated based on informant information were often more effective and efficient than returns initiated using the IRS’ primary method for selecting returns for examination.

Nonetheless, perhaps based in part on the past hostility toward the IRS’s making effective use of whistleblowers before 2006, the old “informant” program was no program at all. This was the “mess” that the new Whistleblower Office Director and tiny staff of four inherited and had to start revamping in 2007, as described by TIGTA’s 2006 report:
(more…)

IRS Whistleblower Program: Inspector General Urges Whistleblower Protection from Retaliation and Administrative Changes

October 7, 2009
Michael Sullivan

Today the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (“TIGTA”) released a Report on the IRS Whistleblower Program that urges Congress to protect IRS whistleblowers from retaliation by employers, and recommends various administrative changes to the Program.

The Report’s title, “Deficiencies Exist in the Control and Timely Resolution of Whistleblower Claims,” is misleading to this writer, who has followed the progress of the new Program since its inception. Before Congress created the new IRS Whistleblower program in December 2006, the Inspector General had observed
(more…)

IRS Whistleblower Office Issues Latest Annual Report to Congress

September 28, 2009
Michael Sullivan

The IRS Whistleblower Office has released its Annual Report to Congress, for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2008. Some highlights are below:

First, the IRS Whistleblower Program has experienced explosive growth since Congress authorized these new IRS Whistleblower rewards in December 2006.

According to this Report, “the initial results suggest that whistleblowers with significant knowledge are coming forward as a result of the changes to the award program. We received claims that appear to meet the section 7623(b) criteria on 46
(more…)

Health Care Fraud Lawyers to Analyze Recent Amendments to False Claims Act

September 26, 2009
Michael Sullivan

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
(more…)