Case Evaluation FormThursday, April 12th, 2018
April 12, 2018 In the Southeastern United States (the 11th Circuit federal court jurisdiction), some whistleblowers can now go back as far as 10 years to collect damages, not just 6 years as is the case in some other parts of the country. According to the language of the False Claims Act, qui tam cases […]
Tuesday, February 13th, 2018
February 13, 2018 The federal budget bill signed into law on February 9, 2018 extends the tax deduction for attorney’s fees paid out of federal False Claims Act whistleblower awards to many other federal and state whistleblower programs and expands the scope of what can be investigated under the IRS whistleblower program. Double Taxation Eliminated […]
Friday, December 16th, 2016
December 15, 2016 Once again, the U.S. Department of Justice identifies a Wilbanks & Gouinlock case as one of the top five most significant healthcare fraud cases of 2016. Click here to view the U.S. Department of Justice press release.
Tuesday, December 6th, 2016
December 6, 2016 Today the United States Supreme Court unanimously decided that contrary to arguments made by government contractors and the United States Chamber of Commerce, a breach of the seal in a qui tam case does not require dismissal of the case. The court in State Farm Fire and Casualty Company v. U.S. ex […]
Wednesday, September 21st, 2016
In a recent “Statement of Interest,” filed in a qui tam/False Claims Act case pending in Massachusetts, the U.S. Department of Justice has weighed in on what the Supreme Court’s decision in Escobar means in a way that is very favorable to whistleblowers.
Thursday, July 21st, 2016
The Department of Justice has said it intends to increase the minimum per-claim penalty from $5,500 to $10,781 and to increase the maximum per-claim penalty from $11,000 to $21,563 if a defendant is found liable under the False Claims Act
Wednesday, July 20th, 2016
The United States Supreme Court has upheld the “implied certification” theory of liability in a False Claims Act case, meaning that a defendant can be liable under the False Claims Act for billing the government for goods or services when the defendant is not in compliance with material statutory, regulatory, or contractual requirements related to those good or services.