Whistleblower Blog Archives - Page 9 of 35

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

Long-Awaited IRS Whistleblower Rule “Fix” Is Released for Comment

January 14, 2011
Michael Sullivan

We have written previously about Senator Grassley’s pointed criticisms of aspects of the IRS whistleblower rules proposed in June 2010. The IRS’s delay in finalizing those rules is a principal reason why the IRS has not yet paid whistleblowers who have come forward since the December 2006 creation of the new IRS Whistleblower Program.

Today, the IRS took a large step to correct one major flaw that Grassley urged be corrected: re-writing a bizarre rule that would deny rewards to valuable whistleblowers who prevent improper refunds, or reduce a credit balance by a taxpayer. From what we can tell, that nonsensical rule was not the creation of the IRS Whistleblower Office, but of others within the IRS.

The IRS today announced a new IRS whistleblower rule to correct that anomaly, to be published for comment in the Federal Register.

Specifically, in a June 21, 2010 letter to Treasury Secretary Tim Geitner, Grassley challenged the IRS to write a sensible rule to correct this result:

In addition to the IRS posting the new [Internal Revenue Manual] provisions without public comment, there are many substantive concerns within the IRM. For example, the new definition of “collected proceeds” is particularly troubling because it seems to limit the payment of awards to whistleblowers only in those instances where the IRS receives cash payment from a taxpayer. . . . The denial of a whistleblower award where the whistleblower’s information leads to the denial of a claim for refund seems to create a perverse incentive for the whistleblower to wait until the IRS has paid an improper refund. In addition, the IRM says that satisfaction of a taxpayer’s liabilities by reducing a credit balance is not within the scope of collected proceeds so the whistleblower would receive no award.

The new proposed rule attempts at least a partial fix. It provides that rewards may now be paid on “amounts collected prior to receipt of the information if the information provided results in the denial of a claim for refund that otherwise would have been paid; and a reduction of an overpayment credit balance used to satisfy a tax liability incurred because of the information provided.”

Today’s proposed rule does nothing to address Grassley’s other criticisms of the June 2010 proposed rules.
(more…)

Activities of IRS Large Business and International Division Earn Its Commissioner Recognition As “Tax Person of the Year”

January 4, 2011
Michael Sullivan

Citing many developments in the IRS Large Business and International Division in 2010, Tax Analysts this week named IRS LB&I Commissioner Heather Maloy as its “Tax Person of the Year.”

Among those developments that we have followed previously are the international focus of the restructured LB&I division (formerly known as the Large and Mid-Size Business Division (LMSB)), and the creation of the new Global High Wealth Industry Group within LB&I. That group within LB&I is already is working some very significant IRS Whistleblower cases.

Also mentioned by Tax Notes was one of my favorite IRS professionals who assisted the new IRS Whistleblower Program in its infancy, Stuart Mann:
(more…)

New SEC Whistleblower Program to Benefit from SEC’s Appointment of New Enforcement Official?

December 17, 2010
Michael Sullivan

The SEC has just announced that current senior advisor to SEC Chairman Mary Schapiro, Stephen L. Cohen, has been named an Associate Director of the Division of Enforcement.

We hope this is good news for the nascent SEC Whistleblower Program. The SEC recently announced that its delaying creation of an SEC Whistleblower Office for budget reasons.

Steve Cohen has advised Chairman Schapiro on a number of issues including the SEC Whistleblower program, which I have discussed with him briefly earlier this year.

Coincidentally, the announcement came on yesterday’s deadline for comments on the SEC’s proposed rules for SEC whistleblowers, which must be substantially revamped so as not to defeat Congress’ purpose by discouraging meaningful whistleblowers from coming forward. We have submitted our own comments to the SEC on its proposed whistleblower rules, and will discuss later others’ comments here. See our comments

The SEC’s press release is reprinted below:
(more…)

IRS Whistleblower Claims Reporting Tax Evasion and “Overlooked” Returns

December 12, 2010
Michael Sullivan

Tax whistleblowers using the new IRS Whistleblower Program have reported many instances of tax evasion involving domestic and foreign corporations, partnerships, and trusts, in addition to abusive offshore transactions about which we have written previously. These tax whistleblowers will allow the IRS to reduce the more than $300 billion “tax gap”–the difference between what tax cheats owe, but refuse to pay.

Tax evasion generally entails taxpayers understating taxes in the returns they file. In many cases evasion also entails taxpayers failing to file returns, especially information returns (as opposed to tax returns).

For example, partnership returns (Form 1065) are information returns and as such do not report tax payable. Cases of partnership tax evasion sometimes arise where filing Form 1065 is “overlooked.” In many of these cases, the partners continue to file their own income tax returns, which typically understate taxable income and tax payable, as there are no K-1’s to report.

Another partnership information return frequently overlooked is Form 8275. This form should generally be filed where partners have made partnership contributions, and received partnership distributions, within a two year period. Failing to file 8275’s typically results in an underpayment of tax where the disguised sale rules operate to treat the contribution and distribution as a sale.

Cancellation Of Debt (“COD”) is another area where non-filing of information returns (generally Form 1099-C) often results in an underpayment of tax, particularly in relation to non-institutional debt.

The problem of overlooked returns is not limited to income tax. Another return that is frequently overlooked is Form 709. This form should be filed by individuals who gift property that does not qualify for exclusion from gift tax.

On the international side, taxpayer interests in foreign companies should often be information reported on Form 5471. Where taxpayers have interests in foreign companies that hold interests in other foreign companies, multiple 5471’s may need to be filed to reflect second tier or higher tier interests. Failing to file 5471’s typically results in an underpayment of tax where foreign company income is required to be included in US income, for example under the Subpart F rules.
(more…)

Special: Article Explaining the 2010 False Claims Act and State False Claims Acts

December 7, 2010
Michael Sullivan

Three years ago, our whistleblower lawyer blog presented an in-depth article discussing the nation’s major whistleblower law, the False Claims Act, and the wave of new state False Claims Acts.

Since then in 2009-2010, Congress has amended the False Claims Act three times to remove obstacles created by courts, which had limited the law’s effectiveness. To reflect those important and needed changes in the law, I have updated this article to present at the 2010 Fraud and Compliance Forum sponsored by the American Health Lawyers Association and Health Care Compliance Association.

That detailed article is excerpted here to explain the False Claims Act, with its 2009-2010 amendments. For ease of reading, it is divided into six parts:

Part 1: Introduction: What You Should Know About the False Claims Act And New State False Claims Acts After the 2009-2010 Amendments

Part 2: The False Claims Act and the Increasing Number of State False Claims Acts

Part 3: The False Claims Act: Background & History

Part 4: How the False Claims Act Works After the 2009-2010 Amendments (with Comparisons to Some State False Claims Acts)

Part 5: The Trend of Recoveries Under the False Claims Act

Part 6: States’ Experiences With Their Own False Claims Acts

If you have any questions about a potential False Claims Act case, please feel free to contact us at 800-228-9159, or send an email through the link here.
(more…)

Part 1: Introduction: What You Should Know About the False Claims Act And New State False Claims Acts After the 2009-2010 Amendments

December 7, 2010
Michael Sullivan

This is Part 1 of an updated explanation of the major qui tam whistleblower statutes, the federal False Claims Act and the new state False Claims Acts. This Part 1 provides an introduction to the False Claims Act.

In 2010, more than ever, it is essential for lawyers to understand their clients’ potential liabilities under the federal False Claims Act (“FCA”). The health care industry increasingly has become the major focus of the federal government’s enforcement efforts, and usually pays at least two-thirds of the money recovered each year under this anti-fraud statute.

Adding to the health care lawyer’s challenges, since 2009 Congress has amended the False Claims Act three times, primarily to overturn judicial decisions that once created obstacles to FCA actions. Those amendments also have created an important new basis of FCA liability – retention of overpayments – which has great significance to health care providers. These 2009-2010 amendments make the FCA a far more effective enforcement tool for the government, and thus a much greater problem for defendants accused of health care fraud.

Further, a wave of new “whistleblower” statutes continues, inspired by the successes of the False Claims Act. These new laws include (1) an increasing number of state versions of the federal False Claims Act; (2) the new IRS Whistleblower Rewards Program; and (3) new “SEC Whistleblower” and “CFTC Whistleblower” programs, authorized in July 2010 as part of the Dodd-Frank Financial Reform Act. By encouraging employees, contractors, and others to report allegations of fraud, these new whistleblower provisions create substantial concerns for health care organizations and other defendants alleged to be liable.

This article provides an overview of what health care lawyers should know about the federal False Claims Act and the new state False Claims Acts. As discussed below, the state Acts mirror the federal False Claims Act in important respects, but can differ in some significant ways.
(more…)

Part 2: The False Claims Act and the Increasing Number of State False Claims Acts

December 7, 2010
Michael Sullivan

This is Part 2 of an explanation the federal False Claims Act and the new state False Claims Acts with qui tam whistleblower provisions. This Part 2 discusses the sound policy reasons underlying the False Claims Act.

I. Why Have 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.(Quoted from legislative history of 1986 amendments to False Claims Act).

Fraud – and allegations of fraud – plagues government spending at every level. Today, as the federal government struggles to fund the hundreds of billions of dollars spent annually on health care through Medicare, Medicaid, and other programs; the Iraq and Afghanistan wars; the financial “bailout” measures enacted after the 2008 financial collapse; disaster relief efforts; 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. 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 two decades, 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.”

The federal False Claims Act since 1986 has been successful in recovering more than $27 billion, 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 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.
(more…)

Part 3: The False Claims Act: Background & History

December 7, 2010
Michael Sullivan

This is Part 3 of an updated explanation of the major qui tam whistleblower statutes, the federal False Claims Act and the new state False Claims Acts. This Part 3 explains the history of the False Claims Act and why effective whistleblower laws are important.

II. Background of the Federal 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.

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.

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.”

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.

The original Act provided for double damages, plus a $2,000 forfeiture for each claim submitted. 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.

The Act survived in substantially its original form until World War II. 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.
(more…)

Part 4: How the False Claims Act Works After the 2009-2010 Amendments (with Comparisons to Some State False Claims Acts)

December 7, 2010
Michael Sullivan

This Part 4 of a six part summary explains how the federal False Claims Act works, after Congress amended it three times in 2009-2010. It also discusses similar provisions of some state False Claims Acts.

This is an update from a previously published article by whistleblower lawyer blog author Michael A. Sullivan.

III. Overview of How the Modern False Claims Act Works (with Comparisons to Some State False Claims Acts)

A. Conduct Prohibited

The federal False Claims Act imposes civil liability under several different theories, only four of which were generally used before FERA. FERA has added an additional theory of liability for retention of overpayments, which now will likely be used quite often in health care cases:

First, the Act makes liable any person who knowingly presents, or causes to be presented, a “false or fraudulent claim for payment or approval.”

Second, the Act creates liability for using a “false record or statement.” It imposes liability on any person who “knowingly makes, uses, or causes to be made or used, a false record or statement material to a false or fraudulent claim.”

“Claim” is broadly defined, and is not limited to submissions made directly to the federal government:
(more…)

Part 5: The Trend of Recoveries Under the False Claims Act

December 7, 2010
Michael Sullivan

This is Part 5 of 6 of a recently updated article about the qui tam whistleblower statutes, the federal False Claims Act and the new state False Claims Acts. This is an updated version of a previously published article by whistleblower lawyer blog author Michael A. Sulliva.

This Part 5 discusses the striking success of the False Claims Act since its 1986 Amendments, as it has recovered more than $27 billion in taxpayers’ money wrongfully obtained by fraud and false claims.

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

Over the past twenty-four years 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 (“DOJ”) statistics 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. In that record year, 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.

In 2010, DOJ set a record for health care fraud recoveries of $2.5 billion, out of a total of $3 billion recovered from civil fraud claims. $2.3 billion of that $3 billion resulted from qui tam cases. DOJ also set a two-year record for recoveries of $5.4 billion in 2009-2010, most as a result of qui tam cases.
(more…)