New TAF Report Affirms that Whistleblower Incentives Are Crucial to Fighting Fraud

It's clear that false claims made against our government costs American taxpayers a lot of money.  Medicaid and Medicare fraud, education fraud, or fraud by defense contractors—to cite just a few examples—take billions of dollars from federal programs each year.  But how can the perpetrators be identified, stopped, and held accountable?  Whistleblowers are often the best chance the government has to put an end to fraud because they have access to crucial facts that the government may not be able to uncover.

Whistleblowers come forward for a variety of reasons, most often because they feel compelled to right a wrong.  It can be scary, however, to stand up to an employer or colleague.  The qui tam provisions in the False Claims Act give individuals with evidence of fraud the right to bring suit on behalf of the government.  The False Claims Act also gives whistleblowers a share in whatever recovery the government receives as a result of the whistleblower's involvement.  Whistleblowers are eligible to receive awards of 15 to 30 percent of the government's total recovery.

In October 2011, a U.S. Chamber of Commerce report supported significant reductions in whistleblower awards under the federal False Claims Act. More recently, public-interest advocates Taxpayers Against Fraud (TAF) has issued its own report that explores the benefits of presenting whistleblowers with the possibility of substantial awards for their efforts and addresses problems in the Chamber of Commerce’s proposal to cap whistleblower awards.

Misty Farris, Laurie Meggesin, and Janice Pennington are three practicing appellate lawyers who also enjoy helping trial and consumer lawyers with law firm web content and marketing projects.  We know the law, we know the business and we know the clients.  We could easily be writing original news summaries about the False Claims Act for your law firm website or law blog.  Give us a call at 214 586 0040 or complete our contact form.

A new seven-hospital study indicates that a possibly deadly problem with a St. Jude Medical Inc. heart device may have far-reaching impact, reports the Wall Street Journal. In 712 devices, 67 had leads (wires that connect defibrillators to patients' hearts) that had failed. In studying X-ray images from 110 patients included in the study, scientists learned that 25 percent of the devices had wires inside the defibrillator leads that could be seen breaking through their insulation. Of that 25 percent, one-third of the devices had additional electrical problems. The study's results were recently presented to an assembly of the Heart Rhythm Society.

Researchers found lead failures in both the situations in which defibrillators are commonly used: to send a shock of electricity to the heart to reset an irregular heartbeat back to its normal rhythm and to jolt the heart when a shock is not warranted.

Approximately 79,000 patients have been implanted with the devices in this country. The problems reported recently are reminiscent of those found in St.Jude's Rialta leads, which the company stopped selling in 2010. The Rialta devices were recalled in December 2011. And in March, the journal Heart Rhymth published a study by a Minneapolis Heart Institute cardiologist, Robert Hauser, in which the Rialta devices were linked to at least 20 deaths. St. Jude has promised to release initial findings by the end of June from the device-maker's own study of 700 patients.

The latest research could find no common factors like gender, age or medical condition, that might help physicians to predict when the St. Jude heart device might fail. According to the doctor who presented the seven-hospital study, the failure rate for the leads in the St. Jude devices is higher than for other leads in other devices. In addition, the presence of exposed wires in a device could be a predictor for future electrical problems.

Researchers fear that Rialta's defects will only grow worse with passing time. A 2011 study in Ireland reported that approximately 15 percent of patients with Rialta devices had experienced the problem with exposed wires. But a study in Nashville at Vanderbilt Medical Center of patients who had had the Rialta leads for a longer period of time found twice that rate.

Misty Farris, Laurie Meggesin and Janice Pennington are three practicing appellate lawyers who also enjoy helping trial and consumer lawyers with law firm Web content and marketing projects. We know the law, we know the business and we know the clients. We could easily be writing these original news summaries about dangerous medical devices for your law firm website or law blog. Give us a call at 214 586 0040 or complete our Contact form.

Every year, reports ABC News, 400 drivers and passengers are killed and around 5,000 more are injured in “underride” trucking collisions on U.S. roadways. Such accidents occur when a passenger car collides with the back end of a tractor trailer.

Underride guards have been required for the back of 18-wheelers since the 1950s to prevent a car from driving underneath the rear of the trailer. But in tests conducted by the Insurance Institute of Highway Safety (“IIHS”), it was discovered that many of the underride guards are not strong enough. Even at speeds of 30 or 35 miles an hour, many of the built-in metal guards failed, allowing cars to make their way under the trailers and peeling back the hood and windshield of the automobiles right around the level of the front seat occupants' necks.

The IIHS reports that auto manufacturers have improved the ability of engine compartments to absorb the impact of a crash and protect passengers more effectively. But since the 1990s, trailer underride guards have remained unchanged. Some argue that lives would be saved if the U.S. were to require more rigid underride guards, similar to those mandated in Canada.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration says it identified the need for enhancing underride performance when cars crash into the rear end of trucks back in 2009. But the agency is still studying the issue. The Florida Trucking Association claims to be worried about the additional weight – and cost – of stronger underride guards. The IIHS testing revealed that some of the worst performers in crash tests were the heaviest underride guards.

The response of the Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association is not surprising. The association suggested that changes to the rear guards could lead to even more injuries and deaths. In addition, the trade group noted that accidents often result from driver error as opposed to inadequate guards on the trucks. Instead of focusing on the safety of large, heavy tractor trailers, the trucking group suggested that the answer may lie with changes to passenger automobiles: “Crash avoidance technologies are being developed for passenger vehicles, and these may help prevent all kinds of crashes, including rear-end collisions involving vehicles of all types.”

Misty Farris, Laurie Meggesin and Janice Pennington are three practicing appellate lawyers who also enjoy helping trial and consumer lawyers with law firm Web content and marketing projects. We know the law, we know the business and we know the clients. We could easily be writing these original news summaries about catastrophic trucking accidents for your law firm website or law blog. Give us a call at 214 586 0040 or complete our Contact form.

The first federal trial has been scheduled in the roughly 600 pending federal cases that have been filed against C.R. Bard Inc. in connection with the manufacturer’s Avaulta vaginal mesh medical device, Bloomberg News has reported.  U.S. District Judge Joseph R. Goodwin in Charleston, West Virginia, in whose court the cases have been consolidated, set the trial for February 5, 2013.  The consolidated cases have been filed against Bard, Johnson & Johnson and other vaginal mesh insert makers. Judge Goodwin is supervising the parties as they gather information relevant to claims against Boston Scientific Corp. and the American Medical Systems unit of Endo Pharmaceutical Holdings Inc. as well as Bard and Johnson & Johnson, all of which make the pelvic implants. 

The mesh devices are implanted in over 75,000 women each year to treat prolapse, incontinence and bulging pelvic organs.  In August 2011, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration reported that, based on side-effect reports from January 2008 to December 2010, vaginal-mesh implants pose a high risk to patients. Women’s health organizations are pushing for a recall of the devices. 

In January 2012, the FDA ordered 31 manufacturers to conduct three-year-long studies of the incidence of organ damage over time associated with vaginal-mesh implants. Many women have experienced pain and injuries because the devices appear to erode and shrink over a period of time.

State court cases are also pending against Bard and Johnson & Johnson in New Jersey state court in Atlantic City.  Superior Court Judge Carol Higbee is supervising the evidence gathering phase of the trial in those cases. She has scheduled a November 5, 2012 trial date for the first case involving the Gynecare Prolift vaginal-mesh insert made by Johnson & Johnson’s Ethicon.

In Delaware and Minnesota state court, Endo’s AMS unit has been sued in connection with its Elevate, Perigee and Apogee surgical mesh devices. 

Misty Farris, Laurie Meggesin and Janice Pennington are three practicing appellate lawyers who also enjoy helping qui tam, consumer and trial lawyers with law firm Web content and marketing projects. We know the law, we know the business and we know the clients. We could easily be writing these original news summaries about dangerous medical devices for your law firm website or law blog. Give us a call at 214 586 0040 or complete our Contact form.

ATK Launch Systems Inc. has consented to pay a $36,967,160 settlement with the U.S. government in resolution of allegations that the company knowingly sold defectively dangerous illumination flares to the Defense Department. ATK makes LUU-2 and LUU-19 illuminating para-flares that burn for over five minutes at a temperature over 3,000 degrees Fahrenheit. The flares, which American forces have used extensively in the war on terror in Iraq and Afghanistan, are useful in nighttime combat and covert search-and-rescue operations.

According to allegations by the U.S. Department of Justice, ATK sold the flares to the Army and the Air Force from 2000 to 2006, knowing that they could not withstand a ten-foot drop test without igniting or exploding. When ATK submitted claims for payment to the government, it knew its products failed to meet these required specifications. As part of the settlement, ATK will pay the United States $21 million in cash and will fix the 76,000 defective para-flares still in the government’s inventory, repair services valued at $15,967,160.

The allegations against ATK were disclosed in a whistleblower lawsuit filed under the federal False Claims Act in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah. Understandably, employees often find it very difficult to report their employers' misconduct. To encourage them to come forward, under the qui tam provisions of the Act, employees who file qui tam litigation are entitled to share in a portion of the government's recovery.

Misty Farris, Laurie Meggesin and Janice Pennington are three practicing appellate lawyers who also enjoy helping qui tam, consumer and trial lawyers with law firm Web content and marketing projects. We know the law, we know the business and we know the clients. We could easily be writing these original news summaries about False Claims Act cases for your law firm website or law blog. Give us a call at 214 586 0040 or complete our Contact form.

Many False Claims Act suits involve instances of fraud in which the government is cheated in a purely financial transaction. Sometimes, however, False Claims Act allegations also involve a matter of principle. Our nation's basic principles are violated, for example, when a contractor falsifies its compliance with the U.S. Department of Transportation’s (DOT) Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) program. The DBE program ensures opportunities for businesses owned by women, minorities and socially or economically disadvantaged individuals to participate in construction and design projects that are federally funded.

The United States has recently entered into a $500,000 settlement with Anthony Allega Cement Contractor Inc., an Ohio construction contractor, in connection with allegations that the contractor knowingly made false claims that it was in compliance with the DBE program when it was not.

Between 2001 and 2006, Allega had been hired as the prime contractor to pave a new runway at the Hopkins International Airport in Cleveland. As part of the contract, Allega was obligated to comply with and to report on DBE participation on the runway project. The government alleged that Allega falsely claimed that a company called Chem-Ty Environmental provided materials and services for the project, when in reality Chem-Ty was just a shell entity employed so it appeared that a DBE had done the work.

The type of fraud in which Allega is alleged to have engaged often comes to light when whistleblowers step forward to report it. Under the qui tam provisions of the federal False Claims Act, whistleblowers are entitled to file suit on the government's behalf and share in any recovery the government receives as a result of the suit.

The U.S. Department of Justice quoted Michelle McVicker, the OIG regional Special Agent in Charge, as warning contractors and subcontractors “not to engage in fraudulent DBE activity and . . . to report any suspected DBE fraud to the USDOT-OIG.” Allega's settlement did not involve a determination of liability.

Misty Farris, Laurie Meggesin and Janice Pennington are three practicing appellate lawyers who also enjoy helping whistleblower and qui tam lawyers with law firm Web content and marketing projects. We know the law, we know the business and we know the clients. We could easily be writing these original news summaries about False Claims Act cases for your law firm website or law blog. Give us a call at 214 586 0040 or complete our Contact form.

Germany’s largest drugmaker, Bayer AG, has agreed to settle around 500 of the thousands of suits filed against the drugmaker over allegations that its YAZ/Yasmin birth-control pills cause possibly fatal blood clots that can bring on strokes and heart attacks. The amount of the settlement, according to Bloomberg, is at least $110 million – an average of about $220,000 a case.

The settlement was reached a few months after a federal judge in Illinois postponed a January 9, 2012 trial date to allow a mediator to work with the parties to negotiate a settlement. The case postponed was to be the first trial in the more than 11,000 cases filed against Bayer because of injuries attributed to Yasmin. The suits allege that Bayer misled users about the health risks associated with Yasmin.

In a February 28 filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Bayer reported that it had settled 70 cases involving Yasmin contraceptives. The terms of that settlement were not disclosed in the filing, though Bayer described them as reasonable.

Women taking Yasmin, warns the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, are 74 percent more likely to experience clots than women using another low-estrogen birth control pill. FDA reports indicate that at least 50 deaths have been associated with Yasmin contraceptives from 2004 to 2008. Yasmin was the fourth most popular oral contraceptive in the U.S. in 2011.

The settlement came only days after the FDA, on April 10, ordered Bayer to beef up its product warnings about blood-clot risks. Bayer's Yasmin and other companies' contraceptives containing drospirenone must now display warnings that users may be at triple the risk for developing blood clots.

Misty Farris, Laurie Meggesin and Janice Pennington are three practicing appellate lawyers who also enjoy helping consumer and trial lawyers with Web content and marketing projects. We know the law, we know the business and we know the clients. We could easily be writing original news summaries or a law blog about dangerous drugs for your site instead of our own. Give us a call at 214 586 0040 or complete our Contact form.

The 2009 Equal Pay Enforcement Act was a Wisconsin law aimed at discouraging the state's employers from discrimination against women and others by allowing Wisconsin workers to file their claims in state court as opposed to the less accessible, more costly federal court system. The act also imposed tougher penalties for employers found to have engaged in discrimination.

The short-lived legislation met its end earlier this month when Republican Governor Scott Walker signed a bill by Wisconsin's now Republican legislature that repeals the law, the Huffington Post has reported. Wisconsin State Representative Christine Sinicki and State Senator Dave Hansen, authors of the original 2009 bill, criticized Walker: “We are finally starting to see progress here in Wisconsin,” said Hansen, “yet like their counterparts across the country, Legislative Republicans want to turn back the clock on women’s rights in the workplace.”

According to the Wisconsin Alliance for Women’s Health, American women on average earn 77 cents for every dollar that men make. The situation is worse in Wisconsin, where women make only 75 cents to the dollar. It is estimated that Wisconsin families are deprived of more than $4,000 each year because of employment discrimination involving unequal pay.

Repeal of the legislation was backed by the Wisconsin Restaurant Association, the Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce and other business associations.

Critics of the repeal railed against the governor and called the repeal a war against women and a step backward for Wisconsin.

Misty Farris, Laurie Meggesin and Janice Pennington are three practicing appellate lawyers who also enjoy helping consumer, employment and trial lawyers with Web content and marketing projects. We know the law, we know the business and we know the clients. We could easily be writing these original news summaries about employment discrimination for your site instead of our own. Give us a call at 214 586 0040 or complete our Contact form.

Nursing home negligence takes many forms. According to a recent study by the inspector general's office of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, one of those is a common failure of nursing homes to prepare and respond properly to natural disasters. As reported in the Huffington Post, this is of particular concern for nursing home residents in the ten states in which disaster is most likely to strike: Texas, California, Oklahoma, New York, Florida, Louisiana, Alabama, Kentucky, Arkansas, and Missouri.

In 2009, more than 3 million Americans spent time in a nursing home. Forty percent of those people lived in homes located in the ten most disaster-prone states. And most nursing home residents are women above the age of 80 who have physical or mental limitations, or both, that make them dependent on others for help with routine daily activities.

To ensure that these nursing home residents will be taken care of when disaster strikes, government regulations require facilities to develop emergency plans and recommend certain other procedures as well. Investigators conducting the HHS study found that an overwhelming majority of the nation's 16,000 homes are in technical compliance with the requirements for planning and training – 92 percent satisfied the standard for emergency planning and 72 percent met the requirements for emergency training. But when investigators actually pulled files and interviewed staff at 24 selected nursing homes, a lack of any meaningful preparedness was often apparent:

At one home, the emergency “plan” was handwritten on a legal pad. At another, pieces of the plan were found in several different boxes rather than in one location.

Many of the plans made no provision for identifying patients in an evacuation, for including lists of necessary medications or of needed medical devices or equipment.

Twenty-two nursing homes had failed to consider how to replace staff who were unable to make it to work during a disaster.

None of the facilities complied with the recommendation to keep on hand a seven-day supply of drinking water. None had a plan to transport necessary food and water for evacuated residents.

Nineteen nursing homes failed to consider how to transport wheelchairs and 22 plans made no provision for transporting medications.

Seventeen facilities did not even have a plan for how to coordinate with local emergency planners about whether to evacuate residents or shelter in place.

Given the commonplace lack of preparedness uncovered by the HHS investigators, their report recommends that specific emergency planning and training procedures be required by Medicare and Medicaid. Marilyn Tavenner, Medicare chief, concurred but in a written statement offered no target date for when such mandatory guidelines might be issued.

Misty Farris, Laurie Meggesin and Janice Pennington are three practicing appellate lawyers who also enjoy helping consumer and trial lawyers with Web content and Web marketing projects. We know the law, we know the business and we know the clients. We could easily be writing original news summaries about nursing home negligence for your website or law blog. Give us a call at 214 586 0040 or complete our Contact form.

Nearly everyone agrees that the State of Alabama has outdone itself (again) by enacting the harshest immigration law in the nation. Since June 2011, Alabama police have been permitted to detain drivers just to verify citizenship status, even when there is no cause for a ticket or an arrest. State residents have waited in long lines as government officials scrutinize legal residency documents now necessary to register a car, get a driver's license or renew a business license. Farmers have watched their crops rot in the fields without workers to pick them.

The U.S. Justice Department and a variety of immigrant, religious and civil rights groups have challenged the legislation in court. Meanwhile, immigrants – whether legal or not – have departed the sweet home that's soured on them.

The Daily Report Online has reported that the Alabama law is about to receive an overhaul. Now, says State Representative Micky Hammon, the Republican who wrote the initial legislation, it's time for a few tweaks to address the provisions that annoy Alabama businesses, all those folks waiting in line and the federal courts. According to Alabama Governor Robert Bentley: "The essence of the bill will not change: Anyone living and working in Alabama must be here legally."

The most important provisions of the revised bill, of course, are those affecting business. Under the new proposed law, a contractor is not responsible if a subcontractor uses undocumented workers unless the contractor actually knows about it. Landlords can rest easy too; the new changes eliminated a provision that made renting to an undocumented immigrant equivalent to harboring one.

And there's something for retailers and lenders too. The existing law simply voids their contracts with undocumented residents, possibly leaving businesses in the lurch for items purchased over time or on credit. Representative Hammon's new bill keeps lenders safe by clarifying that it affects only contracts made after the law's enactment.

Here's what Hammon has for everyone else. For those tired of waiting, proof of legal residency will no longer be required for the renewal of driver's licenses, license plates and business licenses.

Inhabitants of Alabama will be able to prove residency in two new ways – military IDs and Alabama driver's licenses either valid or expired less than six months.

Police will be permitted to detain people for the purpose of checking residency only if they've actually issued a ticket or made an arrest.

And in a nod to the federal courts that struck down two provisions, public schools will not have to verify the legal residency status of new students and undocumented residents may not be prevented from attending college in Alabama. Go Big Al!

Misty Farris, Laurie Meggesin and Janice Pennington are three practicing appellate lawyers who also enjoy helping consumer and trial lawyers with Web content and marketing projects. We know the law, we know the business and we know the clients. We could easily be writing these original news summaries for your site instead of our own. Give us a call at 214 586 0040 or complete our Contact form.