Recent Qui Tam Cases Part 3: Governments Behaving Badly
Are you a state or local government employee? Keep a close eye on your employer--they may be ripping off taxpayers and the federal government-- and setting themselves up for a qui tam suit. Furthermore, guess who ends up footing the bill for all those hours the state or municipality spends on formulating a defense? Some recent cases illustrate that states and other local governments are not immune from greed when the federal government is doling out the cash.
New York State and New York City recently entered into a record-breaking settlement with the federal government to resolve claims that they submitted false claims for reimbursement for school-based health care services and transportation for Medicaid-eligible kids between 1990 and 2001. In July 2009, the city and state agreed to pay $540 million to settle the fraud allegations. All you New Yorkers out there already being skewered by New York's relentless tax impalements, get ready to help out with the settlement!
Since the 1990s, the federal government has paid billions in reimbursements to New York State and City through the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, a component of the Department of Health and Human Services. New York received these matching funds for services provided to the poor and disabled in the state. According to the allegations, New York State failed to provide proper guidance to the agencies receiving the funds, and later passed on claims for services that the state knew were not covered or properly documented. New York City allegedly submitted false claims to the state for speech therapy reimbursement, which the state submitted to the federal government along with the rest of the mess. The qui tam relator in this case was an astute speech therapist in upstate New York, who will walk away with $10 million as her share of the settlement.
In May 2009, the Maine Department of Education agreed to pay the U.S. $1.5 million to settle allegations that the department submitted false information to the U.S. Department of Education regarding the Maine Department of Education's eligibility to receive federal funds under the Migrant Education Fund. The Migrant Education Fund provides federal financial assistance for the special educational needs of migrant children, but states must follow specific criteria in identifying these children. The Maine Department of Education and other defendants allegedly falsely represented the number of eligible migrant children living in the state over a three year period, thereby defrauding the government.
Finally in March 2009, San Mateo, California, jumped on the Medicare/Medicaid fraud bandwagon when it paid the government $6.8 million to resolve False Claims Act allegations. The allegations were originally filed by a qui tam whistleblower who was also a county employee. According to the government's suit, the San Mateo Medical Center inflated its bed count in order to fraudulently receive higher Medicare payments. In addition, San Mateo County allegedly improperly obtained federal funds under Medicaid for services that were actually ineligible and were supposed to be reported to the California Department of Mental Health as such.
Protecting Animals with the FCA
A fascinating False Claims Act case that began back in 2001 has met another procedural roadblock, although it may not be over yet. The case highlights the fact that the FCA covers seemingly limitless subjects due to the sheer variety of things on which the government spends our money.
The case,United States ex rel. Patricia Haight, et al., v. Catholic Healthcare West, et al., 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 2381 (9th Cir. 2010), stems from a very touchy and controversial subject: brain tumor research...on beagle puppies. Dr. Michael Berens was a research scientist attempting to replicate brain tumors by injecting cancer cells into beagle pups in utero. To top that off, he euthanized healthy dogs which did not develop tumors, drawing a great deal of criticism. Dr. Berens received federal funding for his work from the National Institutes of Health, and this is where the False Claims Act comes in.
According to the plaintiffs in the case, Dr. Berens submitted inaccurate information to obtain grants, thereby defrauding the government. The plaintiffs, Dr. Patricia Haight, an animal rights activist and experimental psychologist with animal research experience, and In Defense of Animals, a California-based organization, claimed that Dr. Berens made his research out to be far more fruitful than it actually was in order to obtain over $700,000 in grant money.
Unfortunately for the plaintiffs in this case, the government decided not to intervene. The relators forged ahead with their case, but after many tortuous procedural twists and turns, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ultimately dismissed the case based on the plaintiffs' failure to file a notice of appeal within a specified time period. Haight v. Catholic Healthcare West, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 2381 (9th Cir. 2010). The court stated that "We sympathize with Plaintiffs, who complied with our precedent in filing their notice of appeal 51 days after the entry of judgment." Id. at *14. This surely came as cold comfort to the plaintiffs, who had been involved in a decade of litigation over what seems to be an ingenious--and valid--application of the FCA.
It will be interesting to see what moves the plaintiffs make next. Hopefully they won't go without a fight. It takes a lot of courage and perseverance to pursue litigation for this long, but the plaintiffs obviously believe deeply in their cause.
Recent Qui Tam Cases Part 2: Military Contractors
With the number of military contractors at an all-time high, it is not much of a surprise that we are seeing many qui tam cases related to military contracts. These cases often concern procurement contracts, which makes military contractor fraud particularly disturbing. Not only does this type of fraud waste massive amounts of taxpayer dollars, it also puts the lives of military personnel at risk, thereby undermining national defense. Every time a military contractor fails to deliver a shipment of food for troops or omits a crucial piece of specified safety equipment, everyone loses--including the contractor when it eventually gets hit with a qui tam suit.
In February 2009, shipping company APL Ltd. agreed to pay the government $26.3 million to resolve a qui tam case alleging that the company submitted false claims in connection with its contract to transport thousands of containers to Iraq and Afghanistan. The government alleged that APL overcharged and double-billed for certain services. An APL employee discovered what the company was doing, and filed a qui tam suit.
In March 2009, Sikorsky Aircraft Company, which manufactures the storied Black Hawk helicopter for various branches of the military, agreed to pay the government $2.9 million to settle claims that it failed to install required safety equipment. Under Sikorsky's contract, it was obligated to install certain armored plates in Black Hawks to ensure that they could withstand combat. Fortunately no injuries resulted from the fraud, but it was fraud nonetheless because Sikorsky claimed payment for non-compliant goods.
In April 2009, Northrup Grumann agreed to pay the government $325 million to settle a qui tam suit alleging that a company Northrup Grumann purchased in 2002, TRW, made defective parts for spy satellites. TRW worked with another company to cover up malfunctions in satellite parts, which resulted in delayed satellite launches and failures in orbit. This enormous settlement was the largest ever for a qui tam claim alleging procurement fraud.
In August2009, another aircraft company entered into a multi-million dollar settlement to resolve a qui tam suit. Boeing Company agreed to pay the government $25 million to settle allegations that it performed defective work on the entire KC-10 Extender fleet (the KC-10 Extender performs the delicate task of mid-flight refueling for the Air Force). The original qui tam claim alleged that Boeing had performed faulty work while installing insulation in the KC-10. During the government's investigation, it found that Boeing had also overcharged the government for this faulty work by inflating the number of hours necessary and charging an excessive hourly rate.
In November 2009, the Department of Justice joined a qui tam suit against Public Warehousing Company (PWC) and The Sultan Center Food Products Company (TSC), Kuwaiti-based companies that supplied food to troops in the Middle East. The suit alleges that the companies violated the False Claims Act by overcharging the government for locally available produce, and also by failing to pass along to the government cost savings obtained through rebates. PWC has contracts worth billions of dollars to supply food to troops in Kuwait, Iraq, and Jordan.



