Comments on: The state of False Claims Act litigation http://overlawyered.com/2014/02/false-claims-act-litigation/ Chronicling the high cost of our legal system Thu, 05 Mar 2015 22:26:29 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.1.1 By: "Lawsuit Accuses Whistleblower Law Firm Of Coaching Employee To Steal Documents" - Overlawyered http://overlawyered.com/2014/02/false-claims-act-litigation/comment-page-1/#comment-269906 Fri, 28 Feb 2014 14:15:05 +0000 http://overlawyered.com/?p=44245#comment-269906 […] qui tam legal adversaries. [Daniel Fisher/Forbes, Plastics News] Earlier on the False Claims Act here and […]

]]>
By: DEM http://overlawyered.com/2014/02/false-claims-act-litigation/comment-page-1/#comment-269817 Thu, 27 Feb 2014 15:31:17 +0000 http://overlawyered.com/?p=44245#comment-269817 Allan, the “fraud” involved in these cases is often far afield from what we normally associate with fraud — i.e., simple, intentional lies. These cases often involve hypertechnical allegations under the government’s byzantine payment systems, Medicare’s PPS most of all.

And these settlements are not admissions of fraud. Often, they are all but coerced by the DOJ, since the companies at issue derive large percentages of their revenue from government sources and can ill-afford to have prolonged litigation battles with their customer. The DOJ playbook is to allege a massive fraud, threaten to throw its unlimited resources behind the prosecution, and then claim victory when the target settles for some small percentage of the potential exposure in an effort to rid itself of the sheer cost and distraction.

]]>
By: Allan http://overlawyered.com/2014/02/false-claims-act-litigation/comment-page-1/#comment-269726 Wed, 26 Feb 2014 20:13:12 +0000 http://overlawyered.com/?p=44245#comment-269726 I have an idea: companies should stop defrauding the government.

We should be glad that the government is recovering ill-gotten gains. On the other hand, maybe there should be a “clean hands” requirement. That is, if it shown (with a higher than the preponderance standard) that the whistleblower participated in the fraud, perhaps the payout should be less.

I would note that the article has a much broader focus than Mr. Olson’s blurb implies. That is an observation, not a criticism. I think Mr. Olson’s editorial choice was well-considered.

]]>