(404) 609-1696

ATLANTA,GA

(404) 341-5314

DULUTH, GA

Whistleblower Blog

Will Your State Have a State False Claims Act?

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…)
Continue Reading

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

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.

Continue Reading

The Whistleblower Statute: The Text of the False Claims Act

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…)
Continue Reading

No More Gifts For Doctors

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…)
Continue Reading

New Compliance and Education Reforms Take Effect

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…)
Continue Reading

Tax Whistleblower Rewards Increase

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…)
Continue Reading

Will Whistleblower Tax Reforms Produce Results?

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…)
Continue Reading

Addressing Contractor Fraud and Abuse in Iraq

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…)
Continue Reading

The CMS Clarifies the Mandatory Whistleblower Reforms

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…)
Continue Reading

Where Is the Oversight?

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…)
Continue Reading

Search

Topics

Our Other Blog

Part 6: The State False Claims Acts: Qui Tam Whistleblower Laws That Seek to Repeat the Successes of the Federal False Claims Act

This Part 6 is the final installment by whistleblower lawyer blog of an article explaining why the major qui tam whistleblower statutes, the federal False Claims Act, has led to a wave of new state False Claims Acts. It is part of a recently published article by whistleblower lawyer blog author Michael A. Sullivan, and this article is reprinted with the permission of the Georgia Bar Journal.

This Part 6 describes the new state whistleblower laws and how states have fared to date in recovering taxpayer money wrongfully through fraud and false claims. It also discusses some interesting new approaches that some states have taken in improving on the federal False Claims Act with their own statutes.

V. Other States’ Experiences With Their Own False Claims Acts

As noted, in 2007 Georgia, New York, and Oklahoma joined the 16 other states that have a False Claims statute, and at least a dozen other states are considering similar laws. [58] The financial incentives of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 have not only prompted states that had 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. [59]

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. [60] 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. [61]

A. How Other States’ False Claims Acts Compare to the New Georgia Statute

Many state False Claims laws have been in transition in 2007. 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 already have done in 2007. While these laws are in flux, some significant differences from 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), [62] many states have used these statutes to protect public funds in general from fraud. Those states include California, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Massachusetts, Montana, Nevada, Oklahoma, Virginia, and Tennessee.

In addition, several states-including Hawaii, Massachusetts, Nevada and Tennessee- have expanded on the federal Act’s four commonly-used theories of liability listed above. These state laws create a new legal theory for holding liable a person or entity who is the “beneficiary” of the “inadvertent submission” of a false or fraudulent claim, if that person or entity fails to disclose (and presumably correct) the false claim after discovering it. [63]

Moreover, Tennessee’s False Claims Act reaches beyond false or fraudulent “claims” and imposes liability for false or fraudulent “conduct” that apparently does not necessarily involve “claims” submitted to the state. This state law adds a new category of liability for “any false or fraudulent conduct, representation, or practice in order to procure anything of value directly or indirectly from the state or any political subdivision.” [64]

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 law enacted in 2007, penalties range from $6,000 to $12,000 for each false or fraudulent claim. [65]

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 (which the Georgia statute also uses): 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%. [66]

B. Notable Results Obtained by States Under Their False Claim Statutes

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. [67] Each state that enacts a False Claims Act that meets the minimum requirements is in a position to join the process.

Most of the state settlements have come from “piggy backing” on federal law enforcement efforts and from joining in global settlements. [68] 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. [69]

Texas’s experience is worth special mention because the Texas Attorney General’s Office has been especially effective in pursuing cases involving false claims in health care. Texas’s statute has allowed it to recover more than $216 million in health care fraud cases since 1999.

Because the Texas Attorney General’s Office has been a leader in recovering damages for health care fraud by using the Texas statute, it was perhaps ironic that OIG initially “disapproved” the highly successful Texas law before it was amended in 2007 to comply with the Deficit Reduction Act standards. [70]

California, whose statute is not limited to health care, recovered $43.1 million in 2005 in a state False Claims action alleging fraud in the installation and monitoring of heating and cooling equipment in San Francisco schools. [71] In 2001, California recovered $31.9 million in an action alleging fraudulent billing during construction of the Los Angeles subway system. [72] Similarly, California recovered $30 million in 2000 in a matter alleging the knowing sale of defective computers to the state and political subdivisions. In 1998, California recovered $187 million in an action alleging the improper retention of unclaimed municipal bonds. [73]

We do not know with any precision the dollar amount of fraud that affects any particular state’s government spending, or how much of that fraud can be prevented through effective use of a state False Claims Act. For now, New York, Oklahoma, and Georgia have joined the list of states that will see how much of at least their Medicaid fraud losses can be recovered through the new state False Claims Acts.

Conclusion

We hope that our article on the False Claims Act and the new state False Claims Acts has been useful. If you would like, please feel free to call us to discuss any questions you may have at 800-228-9159, or email us through our website link here (or directly to msullivan@finchmccranie.com.)
(more…)

Continue Reading

Part 5: The False Claims Act’s Successes–and How They Have Prompted a Wave of State False Claims Acts With Qui Tam Whistleblower Provisions

This is Part 5 of 6 by whistleblower lawyer blog of a detailed article for those wishing to know more about the principal qui tam whistleblower statutes, the federal False Claims Act and the new state False Claims Acts. It is part of a recently published article by whistleblower lawyer blog author Michael A. Sullivan, and this article is reprinted with the permission of the Georgia Bar Journal.

This Part 5 discusses the dramatic successes of the federal False Claims Act since its 1986 Amendments in recovering taxpayers’ money wrongfully obtained by fraud and false claims.

IV. The Trend of Recent Recoveries Under the False Claims Act

Over the past two decades since the modern False Claims Act was established through the 1986 Amendments, the federal government’s recoveries of dollars have grown astronomically, especially in health care cases. The Department of Justice statistics [52] tell the story:

In 1987, the government’s recoveries in qui tam cases totaled zero, presumably because the 1986 Amendments had just taken effect; and total recoveries under the False Claims Act were just $86 million. The following year, qui tam and other False Claims Act settlements and judgments began a steady climb upward, exceeding $200 million by 1989, and $300 million by 1991. By 1994, the government’s recoveries broke the $1 billion mark for the first time, with $380 million of that amount attributable to qui tam case recoveries alone.

In 2000, the government recovered more than $1.5 billion, of which $1.2 billion was derived from qui tam actions. In 2001, the government recovered more than $1.7 billion, with almost $1.2 billion of that amount from qui tam cases. With the exception of 2004, in each year since 2000 the government has recovered more than a billion dollars per year under the False Claims Act, and qui tam actions were responsible for the lion’s share of those recoveries. For example, in 2003, government recoveries exceeded $2.2 billion, of which $1.4 billion came from qui tam cases. Similarly, in 2005, of the government’s total recovery of $1.4 billion, $1.1 billion of that amount came from qui tam cases.

In 2006, the Justice Department recovered a record of more than $3.1 billion in settlements and judgments for fraud and false claims. Of this record $3.1 billion in recoveries, 72% came from the health care field; 20% from defense; and 8% from other sources. Health care alone accounted for $2.2 billion in settlements and judgments, which included a $920 million settlement with Tenet Healthcare Corporation, the country’s second-largest hospital chain. Defense procurement fraud amounted to $609 million in recoveries, which included a $565 million settlement with the Boeing Company.

It is interesting that, while defense procurement fraud both inspired the Act and was the largest source of recoveries at the time of the 1986 Amendments, health care cases now lead in recoveries, as health care costs have grown as a percentage of the federal budget. By industry, in 1987 the defense industry was the largest source of cases under the False Claims Act. [53] The health care industry accounted for only 12% of cases under the False Claims Act in 1987; that percentage grew to 54% by 1997. [54]

Many health care fraud cases have addressed over-billing or up-coding, fraudulent cost reporting, billing for services not provided, and failure to furnish the required “quality of care.” [55] The breakdown of the Department of Justice statistics shows that government recoveries in the health care field have grown from less than $2 million in 1988 to more than $1.8 billion in 2003. Although the amounts recovered rise and fall each year, from 2001–2006 government recoveries from the health care field exceeded $1 billion in five out of six years.

The trend has continued in 2007, as the Office of Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services recently announced that it expects $2.9 billion in recoveries for Medicare, Medicaid, and other federal health and human services programs for the first half of fiscal year 2007. [56]

In short, the health care industry now consistently accounts for the vast majority of settlements and judgments obtained by the federal government for fraud and false claims.
(more…)

Continue Reading

Part 4: The Modern False Claims Act–How It Works

This Part 4 by whistleblower lawyer blog is a continuation of a detailed article for those wishing to know the specifics of the principal qui tam whistleblower statutes, the federal False Claims Act and the new state False Claims Acts. It is taken from a recently published article by whistleblower lawyer blog author Michael A. Sullivan, and it is reprinted with the permission of the Georgia Bar Journal.

This Part 4 focuses on the “modern” False Claims Act–since the 1986 Amendments. Before considering it, please note that, in September 2007, a bipartisan group of Senators introduced the “False Claims Act Correction Act,” a bill to further “modernize” the False Claims Act with substantial improvements intended to restore the Act to Congress’ original intentions. We at whistleblower lawyer blog will provide regular updates as that bill is considered by Congress.

III. Overview of How the Modern False Claims Act Works (with Comparisons to State False Claims Acts, With the New Georgia State False Medicaid Claims Act as a Primary Example)

A. Conduct Prohibited

The federal False Claims Act imposes civil liability under several different theories, only four of which are generally used:

First, the Act makes liable any person who knowingly presents, or causes to be presented, a “false or fraudulent claim for payment or approval” to the federal government. [30] “Claim” is broadly defined to include not only submissions made directly to the federal government, but also “any request or demand . . . for money or property” made to a “contractor, grantee, or other recipient” if the federal government provides any portion of the money or property in question. [31]

Second, the Act creates liability for using a “false record or statement” to obtain payment of a false claim. It imposes liability on any person who “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.” [32]

Third, the False Claims Act imposes liability under a “conspiracy” provision. Any person who “conspires to defraud the Government by getting a false or fraudulent claim allowed or paid” is also liable under the Act. [33]

Fourth, since the government also can be defrauded when a private entity underpays or avoids paying an obligation to the government, the modern Act contains what is known as a “reverse false claim” provision. It creates liability for any person who “knowingly makes, uses, or causes to be made or used, a false record or statement to conceal, avoid, or decrease an obligation to pay or transmit money or property to the Government.” [34] For example, a company that is obligated to pay royalties to the government under an oil lease can be held liable if it uses false records or statements to pay less than what it owes.

Georgia Act compared: The same bases of liability are set forth in new section 49-4-168.1(a), with regard to the Georgia Medicaid program. “Claim” is also broadly defined in the Georgia statute in section 49-4-168(1). In fact, the Georgia statute’s definition of “claim” was intended by the legislature to eliminate a point of dispute about the federal statute [35] by making clear that it applies to “claims” submitted not only to the government, but also to other persons or entities, as long as the Georgia Medicaid program provides any portion of the money or property at issue.

The federal False Claims Act also creates a cause of action for damages for retaliation against employees who assist in the investigation and prosecution of False Claims Act cases. [36] This cause of action belongs to the employee alone, and the government does not share in any recovery for retaliation.

Georgia Act compared: New section 49-4-168.4 establishes a similar right to pursue a claim for retaliation in employment.
(more…)

Continue Reading

Part 3: False Claims Act–Background and History

This is Part 3 by whistleblower lawyer blog of a detailed explanation of the major qui tam whistleblower statutes, the federal False Claims Act and the new state False Claims Acts. It is taken from a recently published article by whistleblower lawyer blog author Michael A. Sullivan, and is reprinted with the permisssion of the Georgia Bar Journal.

The Part 3 explains the history of the False Claims Act and why effective qui tam whistleblower laws are important.

II. Background of the False Claims Act

Although the False Claims Act may be the best known qui tam statute, it is far from being the first. Qui tam actions date back to English law in the 13th and 14th Centuries. This tradition took root in the American colonies and, by 1789, states and the new federal government had authorized qui tam actions in various contexts. [12]

According to one writer:

In the early years of the Nation, the qui tam mechanism served a need at a time when federal and state governments were fairly small and unable to devote significant resources to law enforcement. As the role of the Government expanded, the utility of private assistance in law enforcement did not diminish. If anything, changes in the role and size of Government created a greater role for this method of law enforcement. [13]

Birth of the False Claims Act: The Civil War prompted Congress to enact the original False Claims Act in 1863. As government spending on war materials increased, dishonest government contractors took advantage of opportunities to defraud the United States government. “Through haste, carelessness, or criminal collusion, the state and federal officers accepted almost every offer and paid almost any price for the commodities, regardless of character, quality, or quantity.” [14]

One senator explained how the qui tam provisions of the Act were intended to work:

The effect of the [qui tam provisions] is simply to hold out to a confederate a strong temptation to betray his co-conspirator, and bring him to justice. The bill offers, in short, a reward to the informer who comes into court and betrays his co-conspirator, if he be such; but it is not confined to that class. . . . In short, sir, I have based the [qui tam provision] upon the old fashioned idea of holding out a temptation and setting a rogue to catch a rogue, which is the safest and most expeditious way I have ever discovered of bringing rogues to justice. [15]

The original Act provided for double damages, plus a $2,000 forfeiture for each claim submitted. [16] If a private citizen or “relator” used the qui tam provision to file suit, the government had no right to intervene or control the litigation. A successful “relator” was entitled to one-half of the government’s recovery. [17]

The Act survived in substantially its original form until World War II. [18] In a classic and oft-quoted 1885 passage, one court rejected the argument that courts should limit the statute’s reach on the grounds that qui tam actions were poor public policy:

The statute is a remedial one. It is intended to protect the treasury against the hungry and unscrupulous host that encompasses it on every side, and should be construed accordingly. It was passed upon the theory, based on experience as old as modern civilization, that one of the least expensive and most effective means of preventing frauds on the treasury is to make the perpetrators of them liable to actions by private persons acting, if you please, under the strong stimulus of personal ill will or the hope of gain. Prosecutions conducted by such means compare with the ordinary methods as the enterprising privateer does to the slow-going public vessel. [19]
(more…)

Continue Reading

Part 2: The False Claims Act and the Growing Number of State False Claims Acts With Qui Tam Whistleblower Provisions–the Basics

This is Part 2 by whistleblower lawyer blog of a detailed overview of the federal False Claims Act and the new state False Claims Acts with qui tam whistleblower provisions. It is based on an article by whistleblower lawyer blog author Michael A. Sullivan, and is reprinted with permission of the Georgia Bar Journal.

This Part 2 discusses the sound policy reasons underlying the False Claims Act.

I. Why A “False Claims Act”?

Fraud is perhaps so pervasive and, therefore, costly to the Government due to a lack of deterrence. GAO concluded in its 1981 study that most fraud goes undetected due to the failure of Governmental agencies to effectively ensure accountability on the part of program recipients and Government contractors. The study states:

For those who are caught committing fraud, the chances of being prosecuted and eventually going to jail are slim. . . . The sad truth is that crime against the Government often does pay. [5]

Fraud-and allegations of fraud-plague government spending at every level. Today, as the federal and state governments struggle to fund the billions of dollars spent annually on health care through Medicare and Medicaid; national security and local security efforts; Hurricane Katrina and other disaster relief; and government grants and programs of every description, there is no shortage of opportunities for fraud against the public fisc.

The federal False Claims Act has been the federal government’s “primary” weapon to recover losses from those who defraud it. [6] The Act not only authorizes the government to pursue actions for treble damages and penalties, but also empowers and provides incentives to private citizens to file suit on the government’s behalf as “qui tam relators.” Over the past 20 years, recoveries for the federal government have grown dramatically since Congress amended the Act in 1986 to encourage greater use of the qui tam provisions, as part of a “coordinated effort of both the [g]overnment and the citizenry [to] decrease this wave of defrauding public funds.” [7]

The federal False Claims Act has been successful in recovering billions of dollars, increasingly through qui tam lawsuits brought by private citizens. In light of the federal Act’s successes, Congress in the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 [8] created a large financial “carrot” for states that adopt state versions of the False Claims Act. Any state that passes its own “False Claims” statute with qui tam or whistleblower provisions that are at least as effective as those of the federal Act becomes eligible for a 10% increase in its share of Medicaid fraud recoveries. [9]

Thus, Georgia’s and other states’ impetus in enacting these new state False Claims Acts in 2007 was this incentive of more dollars. In 2007 to date, Georgia, New York, and Oklahoma have joined the 16 other states that have enacted some version of a “False Claims” statute. [10] At least a dozen other states [11] are considering enacting similar statutes of their own so that they, too, qualify for increased funds under the Deficit Reduction Act.
(more…)

Continue Reading

Part 1: The False Claims Act and How It Has Inspired a Wave of State Qui Tam Whistleblower Laws–An Introduction

We at whistleblower lawyer blog hope this detailed article assists those interested in the federal False Claims Act and the new state False Claims Acts with qui tam whistleblower provisions. A version of this article by whistleblower lawyer blog author Michael A. Sullivan [1] has just been published in the October 2007 Georgia Bar Journal. For ease of reading, we have divided the article in six parts–this is Part 1.

The federal False Claims Act [2] has inspired a
(more…)

Continue Reading

Medicare Fraud Scam Leads to Physician’s Indictment

We read today in the news that a Dr. Michael D. Kim in Houston, Texas had been indicted by a Federal Grand Jury in yet another “motorized wheelchair fraud scheme.” According to the government’s indictment, Dr. Kim fraudulently approved thousands of Medicare beneficiaries for motorized wheelchairs in return for cash payments of $200.00 per beneficiary. According to the indictment, thousands of Medicare beneficiaries were brought by paid recruiters to Dr. Kim’s medical clinic in Houston between April of 2002 and October of 2003 for the
(more…)

Continue Reading

IRS Whistleblowers and 75 Billion Dollars?

It is estimated that the annual tax gap between those who owe money to the government as taxes and those who actually pay them (i.e. the annual underpayment of taxes) is $345 billion. Under the new IRS Whistleblower provisions, an insider with information about tax fraud can claim a minimum of 15% up to a maximum of 30% of back taxes collected by the government based on information received from the whistleblower. What this means is that each year if, in fact, the annual tax
(more…)

Continue Reading

Qui Tam Whistleblower Cases Force Bristol-Meyers Squibb to Pay $515 Million to Settle Allegations

Last week, the United States Department of Justice announced that Bristol-Meyers Squibb (BMS) had entered into a settlement agreement to pay more than $515 million to resolve allegations of illegal drug marketing and pricing. This is yet another example where Big Pharma has attempted to gouge the government to increase profits, at the public’s expense. The allegations made by the government, regrettably, are all too familiar and have occurred in many other cases of a similar nature.

The first thing the government alleged was that
(more…)

Continue Reading

Part II: IRS Tax Whistleblower Officials Explain Details of New IRS Whistleblower Rewards Program

This is Part II of this whistleblower lawyer blog’s description of how IRS Tax Whistleblower officials have explained many of the long-awaited details of the new IRS Whistleblower Rewards Program to whistleblower attorneys at the annual Taxpayers Against Fraud Conference in Washington, a national organization of whistleblower lawyers who represent whistleblowers under the False Claims Act, the state False Claims Acts, and the new IRS Whistleblower Rewards Program for tax whistleblowers. Both parts summarize information provided by IRS Whistleblower officials at this Conference, at which I had the pleasure of participating in a panel discussion with the Director of the IRS Whistleblower Office, Stephen Whitlock, and later spending time with other IRS officials from the IRS group responsible for the Financial Services industry (including hedge funds), Large and Mid-Sized Business Division, Stuart Mann and Nicole Cammarota.

The investigation of matters submitted by whistleblowers will be handled not by the Whistleblower Office, but by other IRS officials–in the field. The Whistleblower Office will initially perform a screening function at the beginning of the process, with “classifiers” reviewing the claim submissions and directing them to the appropriate persons within the IRS for investigation, if an investigation is warranted.

If an investigation results, and the government recovers funds (tax liability, interest, penalties, or other amounts), Director Whitlock then will determine the amount of any award to the whistleblower or whistleblowers. The new statute allows the whistleblower to appeal any determinations to the Tax Court to review decisions about rewards.

The threshold question for persons seeking to submit IRS Whistleblower claims is to demonstrate plainly to the IRS why–with so many potential matters that the IRS already has to investigate, and with limited resources–pursuing an investigation suggested by an informant is the best use of the IRS’ limited resources. Not all potential tax violations can be investigated–or will be investigated–by the IRS. Thus, the challenge is to present a whistleblower claim that the IRS will decide to pursue–and pursue vigorously.
(more…)

Continue Reading