According to a recent press release, New York, most other states, and the District of Columbia have settled a False Claims Act case with Medtronic. The whistleblower case alleged that “Medtronic improperly induced physicians to recommend Medtronic devices to treat cardiac rhythmic disease.” The qui tam relator who brought the FCA case will share in the proceeds. In this case, venued in a federal court in California, several states and the federal government cooperated to resolve the matter and reach a favorable outcome. New York’s attorney general thanked the relator for bringing the matter to the government’s attention.
Relators alleging a retaliation claim under the False Claims Act scored a big win in the recent Sixth Circuit decision United States ex rel. Paige v. BAE Systems Technology Solutions & Services, Inc., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 9676 (6th Cir. May 22, 2014), which held that a False Claims Act retaliation claim was not subject to an employment agreement’s arbitration clause.
Relators in that case alleged that the defendant employer retaliated against them for cooperating with the government and filing a whistleblower case. Relators alleged that throughout their employment they complained to management about fraud, but, despite their complaints, the perpetrators of the unlawful conduct were left in place and their attempts to correct the problems were rebuffed. Ultimately, one of the relators was forced to quit due to the retaliation and the other was laid off. The district court dismissed the retaliation claim in favor of arbitration due to a clause in relators’ employment agreements.
False Claims Act practitioners at recent gatherings seem to agree that research grant fraud will be a growing area of whistleblower activity. As the government spends more on research grants related to health care, frauds are expected to increase as well. Qui tam relators will follow.
Research grant frauds can take many forms, ranging from failure to comply with regulations and grant conditions to false grant applications and fabricated results and data. The FCA bar expects increased whistleblower activity in this area in coming years.
Recent gatherings of False Claims Act attorneys —who represent whistleblowers, the government, and the defense — revealed a consensus that medical devices offer fertile ground for future whistleblower activity. Medical device fraud can take at least three forms and may arise for durable medical equipment as well.
- First, defective medical devices, sold in connection with Medicare or Medicaid reimbursement, may lead to FCA liability. On this point, manufacturer quality management systems, supplier controls and monitoring, attention to customer complaints, and corrective measures are all key issues that may impact FCA liability. Medical devices that are not safe, effective, and reliable create FCA risk for their manufacturers.
- Second, off-label promotion of medical devices brings up issues similar to off-label pharmaceutical promotions. FCA approval of devices should guide marketing. If marketing goes off-label, there may be FCA liability.
- Third, kickbacks paid to medical professionals in connection with medical device sales would trigger FCA liability.
Federal government spending on health care is ever-growing. The government frauds in this area, along with qui tam activity, are expected to increase as well.
John Sinatra is a partner in the Business Litigation Practice at Hodgson Russ LLP. You can reach him at jsinatra@hodgsonruss.com.
In a recent False Claims Act case from the Eighth Circuit, Rille v. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 6597 (8th Cir. April 10, 2014), the relators won an important victory against the government relating to their right to obtain a portion of the settlement proceeds of a claim under the act. Specifically, according to the act, if the government “intervenes” in a case brought by relators, relators are entitled to a portion “of the proceeds of the action or settlement of the claim.” 31 U.S.C. 3730(d)(1). But in Rille, the relators had to fight not only defendants, but also the government to get the recovery they were entitled to under the act. The Eighth Circuit – in no uncertain terms – sided with the relators.
According to the IRS Oversight Board’s recent report to Congress, the IRS paid $53 million last year to 122 whistleblowers. This is an average of nearly $435,000 per whistleblower. The whistleblower awards last year average 14.6 percent of the amounts collected by the IRS. As noted in the report, the law requires the IRS to pay awards if the information provided “substantially contributes to the collection of tax, penalties, interest, and other amounts when the amounts in dispute are more than $2,000,000.” The award ranges are based on “percentages of the collected proceeds.” The law is designed to encourage people “with knowledge of significant tax noncompliance to provide that information to the IRS.” According to the report, the IRS “continues to receive submissions from whistleblowers, many of whom claim to have inside knowledge of the transactions they are reporting. They often provide extensive documentation to support their claims.”
John Sinatra is a partner in the Business Litigation Practice at Hodgson Russ LLP. You can reach him at jsinatra@hodgsonruss.com.
New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman announced on March 14, 2014, the successful conclusion of a tax whistleblower case brought under the historic 2010 amendments to the State False Claims Act. Those amendments authorized whistleblowers to earn huge rewards by bringing cases on behalf of the state against those who have engaged in significant violations of the tax law. We have written previously about the 2010 amendments and other New York tax whistleblower developments including the attorney general’s major whistleblower suit against Sprint/Nextel.
In this newly announced case, the attorney general’s press release disclosed that a “tax services provider” became aware of the tax violations and blew the whistle on a medical imaging company, Lantheus Medical Imaging, and its parent company, Bristol-Myers Squibb, for failing to pay more than $2.2 million in New York State franchise taxes, New York City corporation taxes, and MTA surcharges for the period 2002 to 2006.
Because the False Claims Act empowers the state to recover treble damages, the suit was settled with the payment of $6.2 million (which appears to be only a minor compromise by the state), of which $1,137,814 was earmarked for the whistleblower.
The settlement is good news for tax whistleblowers.
JPMorgan Chase recently agreed to pay over $600 million in its settlement of a case brought by the federal government, including HUD, FHA, and the VA, according to a February 2014 stipulation and order of settlement and dismissal entered by the Southern District of New York. The case, originally brought by a qui tam whistleblower, alleged that JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. engaged in misconduct as to mortgage loans with a connection to HUD, FHA, or VA programs. In particular, the government alleged that JPMorgan Chase Bank approved improper loans, submitted false certifications, entered information into its automated system that lacked integrity, and approved ineligible loans, and, as a result of these items, the government paid claims related to defaulted loans. Among other things, the settlement requires defendants to pay the government $614 million. Defendants obtained a False Claims Act release in the settlement agreement, and the agreement recognized that a relator’s share of the government’s recovery would be forthcoming.
John Sinatra is a partner in the Business Litigation Practice at Hodgson Russ LLP. You can reach him at jsinatra@hodgsonruss.com.
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals today allowed a False Claims Act case brought by two whistleblower relators, represented by a team of Hodgson Russ attorneys led by me and my colleague Daniel C. Oliverio, and including Reetuparna Dutta, to proceed against DHL. In this case, the relators allege that DHL violated the FCA by improperly applying jet fuel surcharges to government shipments that it transported solely by ground. DHL’s motion to dismiss had been granted by the trial court on the basis of a 180-day “contest” provision in the transportation law. In vacating that dismissal, the Second Circuit ruled that the False Claims Act’s seal requirements and statute of limitations trump the contest provision, stating that “the 180-day rule cannot apply to a qui tam action under the FCA.” The action, United States ex rel. Grupp and Moll v. DHL Express (USA), Inc., will proceed in the Western District of New York.
My colleagues and I look forward to engaging in discovery to quantify DHL’s false claims and the resulting damages.
John Sinatra is a partner in the Business Litigation Practice at Hodgson Russ LLP. You can reach him at jsinatra@hodgsonruss.com.
According to a press release from the Department of Justice, in fiscal year 2013, the government recovered $3.8 billion in settlements and judgments involving the False Claims Act. This is the second-largest annual recovery in history and brings total recoveries under the False Claims Act since January 2009 (when the act was significantly amended) to $17 billion. Additionally, the number of qui tam (or whistleblower) cases increased to 752 in 2013, which was 100 more than in fiscal year 2012. Recoveries in qui tam cases this year totaled $2.9 billion, with whistleblowers recovering $345 million.