Posts Tagged ‘Whistleblower lawsuits’

Karen Wilson, secretary at a Graham County, N.C. agency, notified state officials of misuse regarding federal aid money intended to be directed toward a flood cleanup operation. Wilson notified officials in 1996, but did not file a False Claims Act suit until 2001 against Graham and Cherokee Counties, as well as other conservation districts and other individual defendants. In between the time Wilson notified officials of the alleged conduct and the time she filed her suit, Graham County hired local accountants to identify the irregular spending. The state followed up and included these findings in its own report.

The False Claims Act does not allow what it calls “parasitic” whistleblower lawsuits that attempt to capitalize on public information. In 2007, federal district court judge Lacy Thornberg found the local audit and state follow-up report to constitute public disclosure under the FCA, thereby barring Wilson’s claim. The question of whether a local or state report constituting public disclosure under the FCA is one that has the federal circuits split almost evenly. The Supreme Court has granted certiorari to Wilson’s case and will address this issue and make a specific determination as to what exactly is meant by public disclosure. For more information on whistleblower lawsuits and the False Claims Act, contact a whistleblower lawyer.

Abbott Laboratories has filed a lawsuit against the Department of Justice (“DOJ”), alleging that the DOJ has abused secrecy provisions in the False Claims Act (“FCA”).  The FCA is a law that governs the filing of whistleblower lawsuits, under which private individuals bring claims on behalf of the federal government to report fraud and misconduct.  Under a qui tam provision of the FCA, whistleblowers are entitled to between 15-30% of the damages awarded to the government by courts.
In a 1995 federal lawsuit ultimately filed in Boston, Ven-A-Care pharmacy in Florida sued multiple pharmaceutical corporations, including Abbott Laboratories, in a whistleblower lawsuit. That lawsuit alleged that Abbott had fraudulently inflated prices.
FCA lawsuits are filed under a seal, meaning that only the whistleblower, the DOJ, and the court have access to information regarding the lawsuit.  As a result, pharmaceutical corporations claim that they are at a disadvantage.  The DOJ can obtain documents without informing the corporation that the documents relate to pending litigation.  Also, although the seal only lasts for 60 days under the FCA, the court can extend the seal if the court deems the extension necessary.
Abbott alleges that the DOJ extended the seal for the Ven-A-Care lawsuit for more than 11 years, and did not preserve the evidence that it obtained under seal.  Because this evidence allegedly was not preserved, there are now evidentiary gaps that could harm the company during trial.  Abbott wants the court to bar damages on claims where there’s missing payment data; order the government to provide state-by-state evidence of fraud; consider missing evidence in Abbott’s favor and order the government to prove that it didn’t knowingly pay claims on terms it now calls false and fraudulent.
Previously, the American Civil Liberties Union (“ACLU”) sued DOJ over the FCA seal.  The ACLU believed that the seal prevents the press and public from learning about the serious fraud allegations that underlie most whistleblower lawsuits.
For more information on the False Claims Act or whistleblower lawsuits, contact a whistleblower lawyer.

On June 9, 2009, the NAACP and nine class representatives filed a motion for class certification in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, on behalf of an estimated 2,000 current and former employees of the Eli Lilly Company, one of the world’s largest pharmaceutical companies.  The plaintiffs also filed an amended complaint alleging that pervasive discriminatory practices by the company affected African-American employees in pay, promotion and promotion-related opportunities, thus denying these employees an equal opportunity to advance within the company. 

Additionally, more than 100 members of the class filed certified declarations describing their experiences with discrimination while at the company.  The plaintiffs are seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, back pay, front pay, attorneys’ fees, and other costs and expenses.   Plaintiffs’ spokesperson Cassandra Welch, who worked at Lilly from 1992 until she was let go in 2004, stated that she was subjected to years of racist comments and threats – including having a dark-colored doll with a noose around its neck left on her desk.  The other class representatives and the declarations all have similar stories, and claim that complaints to supervisors were never properly investigated.  According to co-lead class counsel for plaintiffs, “Lilly discriminates against its African-American employees by advancing the company’s white employees more quickly, and by denying African-American employees equal job assignments, promotional opportunities, training, compensation and other benefits of employment.”

Whether or not these allegations have merit is yet to be seen, but the number of similar declarations filed and potential class members nationwide cannot be ignored.  Discriminatory employment practices should not be tolerated, and praise must go out to those who are stepping forward to bring light to the situation, particularly those who are still currently employed by Lilly and have to deal with the pressures of going against the employer.  If you have experienced or observed questionable and illegal business practices at your company, you may want to speak to one of our whistleblower attorneys to determine if there are any legal options.

On June 9, 2009, the Minnesota Appeals Court dismissed a lawsuit from former Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“MOSHA”) investigators who alleged that they were transferred from their position and dismissed contrary to federal anti-retaliation statutes.  The investigators had complained about their supervisors’ failure to pursue citations against a concrete plant that the investigators believed was conducting business contrary to MOSHA regulations.  The complaining investigators were subsequently denied raises.  MOSHA claimed that the transfers were done to centralize staff, and that the denial of raises was an appropriate management decisions.

However, the Appeals Court determined that the plaintiff in this case, Douglas Crosby, was unable to prove that his transfer and denied raise were connected to his previous complaints about his employer’s behavior.  If this connection had been proven, Crosby would be eligible to receive payment under the federal False Claims Act (“FCA”), which contains a qui tam provision allowing whistleblowers to collect 15-30% of damages awarded by federal courts.  It is unclear whether Crosby will appeal the Appeals Court’s decision.

Another similar lawsuit brought by MOSHA investigator Terrell Swanson is still ongoing.  Swanson’s allegations are similar; he was also denied a raise and transferred following his complaints about his supervisors’ behavior.

If you are aware of ongoing fraud against the government, you could have a whistleblower lawsuit. Contact an experienced whistleblower lawyer for a claim evaluation.

Controversy is building over a lucrative side job for many university doctors and medical professions: giving speeches at events funded by prescription drug manufacturers. Across the country, university doctors are receiving over 20,000 dollars per promotional talk to “educate” other doctors on proper use of drugs. But some watchdogs are concerned that these promotional talks could pressure doctors into prescribing particular drugs, negatively affecting patient care in the process. Moreover, as the university doctors often work at publicly-funded institutions, these critics believe that taxpayer dollars are being used to aid doctors in promoting drug firms.

Although the Senate has considered a bill to track and publish payments made by pharmaceutical companies to doctors, intermediary entities called “medical education and communication companies” complicate the investigatory process. These middleman firms, funded by prescription corporations, organize training events at restaurants and lecture halls and pay doctors to give speeches. Because the go-between firms directly pay university doctors, the doctors do not have to disclose that the money may have ultimately come from prescription drug manufacturers. University doctors never report these top-dollar deals as a conflict of interest.

Other medical professionals are beginning to criticize these promotional and educational events. Some academic doctors who are veterans of the promotional-talk circuit claim that lecturers use slides provided by pharmaceutical companies. These talking points are intended to persuade doctors to begin prescribing certain drugs in order to boost sales. Because of the risks associated with inaccurately prescribed pharmaceuticals, medical school administrators are beginning to ban doctors from giving promotional talks, or from using the university’s name or logo during speeches. This policy is aimed at ending any unseemly relationship between state medical schools and private drug corporations.

Anyone with knowledge of fraud committed against the United States government, specifically the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”), could have a whistleblower lawsuit. Contact us for more information about pharmaceutical corporations, whistleblower lawsuits, or to file a claim.