Whistleblower Blog

The Most Significant Recent Qui Tam Whistleblower Cases Under the False Claims Act

January 18, 2007
Michael Sullivan

This is the final section of my article. It discusses the most significant recent qui tam cases under the False Claims Act (as of December 2006).

B. Recent Significant Recoveries Under the False Claims Act:

1. Health Care Industry

a. Tenet Healthcare Corporation: $900 million

In June 2006, Justice Department announced that Tenet Healthcare Corporation, operator of the Nation’s second largest hospital chain, had agreed to pay the United States more than $900 million for alleged unlawful billing practices.

According to the government, the settlement amount, which was based on the company’s “ability to pay” (a phrase that suggests the government’s calculation of damages was higher), included more than $788 million to resolve claims arising from Tenet’s receipt of excessive “outlier” payments (payments that are intended to be limited to situations involving extraordinarily costly episodes of care, resulting from the hospitals’ inflating their charges substantially in excess of any increase in the costs associated with patient care and billing for services and supplies not provided to patients); more than $47 million to resolve claims that Tenet paid kickbacks to physicians to have Medicare patients referred to its facilities; and that Tenet billed Medicare for services that were ordered or referred by physicians with whom Tenet had an improper financial relationship; and more than $46 million to resolve claims that Tenet engaged in “upcoding.” The Justice Department acknowledged that “several” of the issues arose from lawsuits filed by whistleblowers under the qui tam provisions of the Act.

b. Serona, S.A: $704 million

The Swiss corporation, Serona, S.A., with its U.S. subsidiaries and related entities, agreed to pay $704 million to resolve criminal and civil allegations in October 2005. According to the Justice Department’s announcement, these allegations were in connection with illegal schemes to promote, market, and sell Serostim, an AIDS drug. The civil portion of the settlement was $567 million, and Serona also agreed to pay a $136.9 million criminal fine. This was the third largest health care fraud recovery by the government at the time.

According to the government, Serona knowingly submitted false and fraudulent claims for Serostim that were not eligible for reimbursement because they were for unnecessary and/or for off-label use of Serostim, and because the claims were for prescriptions induced by kickbacks. The investigation began in 2000 because a former Serona Lab’s employee filed a qui tam action, which was followed by other whistleblower suits in other states. This Serona settlement was reportedly the largest civil drug settlement to date.

(more…)

The Growing Importance of the Qui Tam Whistleblower Cases Under the False Claims Act

January 18, 2007
Michael Sullivan

This is part 4 of my article on the False Claims Act. This part discusses the huge increase in federal dollars recovered in the past few years:

IV. Recent Recoveries and Other Developments In Qui Tam Litigation

A. An Explosion of Federal Dollars Recovered Since 1986, Under the False Claims Act

Over the past 20 years since the modern False Claims Act was established through the 1986 Amendments, the federal government’s recoveries of dollars have grown astronomically. The Department of Justice statistics reprinted in Appendix 2 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.51

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 derived from qui tam cases. Similarly, in 2005, of the government’s total recovery of $1.4 billion, $1.1 billion of that amount derived from qui tam cases.

(more…)

How the Modern False Claims Act Works in Qui Tam Whistleblower Cases

January 18, 2007
Michael Sullivan

This is part 3 of my article on how the False Claims Act works:

III. Brief Overview of How the Modern False Claims Act Works

A. Conduct Prohibited

The federal False Claims Act imposes civil liability under several different theories:

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.27 “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.28

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.”29

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.30
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.”31 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.

(more…)

History of the False Claims Act

January 18, 2007
Michael Sullivan

This is the second part of my article explaining the False Claims Act–it addresses the history of the Act:

II. Background of the False Claims Act
While 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.7
According to one writer, “[i]n 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.” 8

A. 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.”9 The original legislative proposal would have made contractors subject to martial law. A substitute bill provided for both civil and criminal penalties, and it authorized private individuals to sue on behalf of the United States. One senator explained how the qui tam provision of the Act was intended to work:

The effect of the [qui tam provision] 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 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.10
The original Act provided for civil penalties of double the amount of damages sustained by the United States as a result of the false claim, plus a $2,000 forfeiture for each claim submitted.11 In the original Act, if a private citizen used the qui tam provision to file suit, the government had no right to intervene or control the litigation. The “relator” who was successful was entitled to receive one-half the amount of the final judgment in forfeiture and damages, with the United States receiving the other half.12

(more…)

Introduction to the False Claims Act and Qui Tam Whistleblower Cases

January 18, 2007
Michael Sullivan

I wrote this article for a seminar to explain the False Claims Act to those who may not know about it. I hope it may be useful to those who are interested in the Act. I have divided it into several sections–this is the first section, summarizing how the False Claims Act came to be in the time of Abraham Lincoln, and how it has evolved since then:

I. Introduction

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.1

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; the Iraq war and reconstruction effort; other Department of Defense procurement; 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, 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729 – 3733, has been the federal government’s “primary” weapon to recover losses from those who defraud it.2 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.”3 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.”4

The False Claims Act has unique procedural requirements that create many pitfalls for a lawyer prosecuting or defending cases under the Act. In addition, the law varies among the different federal circuits in ways that can determine the outcome of a False Claims Act case, depending on where it is filed.

——————————————————————————–

1 Legislative History to P.L. 99-562, False Claims Amendments Act of 1986, Senate Report No. 99-345 S. Rep. 99-345, 3, 1986 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5266, 5268 (hereinafter “Legislative History”) (quoting 1981 GAO Report to Congress, “Fraud in Government Programs: How Extensive is it? How Can it be Controlled?”).

2 Legislative History, at 2, 1986 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 5266.

3 The term “qui tam” is derived from the Latin phrase, “qui tam pro domino rege quam pro se ipso in hac parte sequitur,” which means “who pursues this action on our Lord the King’s behalf as well as his own.” Vermont Agency of Natural Resources v. United States ex rel. Stevens, 529 U.S. 765, 769 N.1 (2000).

4 Senate Report No. 99-345 S. Rep. 99-345, *2, 1986 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5266, **5267. Appendix 2 shows the growth in revenues, which is discussed in section IV infra.

(more…)

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

October 7, 2007
Michael Sullivan

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…)

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

October 7, 2007
Michael Sullivan

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 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…)

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

October 7, 2007
Michael Sullivan

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]

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…)

Part 3: False Claims Act–Background and History

October 7, 2007
Michael Sullivan

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…)

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

October 7, 2007
Michael Sullivan

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…)

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

October 7, 2007
Michael Sullivan

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…)

Medicare Fraud Scam Leads to Physician’s Indictment

October 6, 2007
Michael Sullivan

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…)

IRS Whistleblowers and 75 Billion Dollars?

October 5, 2007
Michael Sullivan

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…)

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

October 4, 2007
Michael Sullivan

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…)

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

September 25, 2007
Michael Sullivan

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…)