Skip to main content

February 7, 2023

Volume XIII, Number 38

National Law Review
  • Login
  • Mdn
  • FB
  • twt
  • link
  • home
  • rss
  • logo
  • Publish / Advertise with Us
    • Publish
    • Advertise
    • Publishing Firms
    • E Newsbulletins
    • Law Student Writing Contest
    • Contact Us
    • Terms of Use
    • Privacy Policy
    • Join Our Team
    • Search
  • Trending Legal News
    • Most Recent
    • Legal News Podcast
    • What's Trending
    • Type of Law
      • Antitrust Law
      • Bankruptcy & Restructuring
      • Biotech, Food & Drug
      • Business of Law
      • Construction & Real Estate
      • Cybersecurity Media & FCC
      • Election & Legislative
      • Environmental & Energy
      • Family, Estates & Trusts
      • Financial, Securities & Banking
      • Global
      • Health Care Law
      • Immigration
      • Insurance
      • Intellectual Property Law
      • Labor & Employment
      • Litigation
      • Public Services, Infrastructure, Transportation
      • Tax
      • White Collar Crime & Consumer Rights
    • E Newsbulletins
    • Legal Educational Events
    • NLR Blog
    • Search
  • About Us
    • About the NLR
    • NLR Team
    • Publishing Firms
    • E Newsbulletins
    • NLR Thought Leadership Awards
      • 2018
      • 2019
      • 2020
      • 2021
      • 2022
    • NLR Blog
    • Contact Us
    • Terms of Use
    • Privacy Policy
    • Search
  • Contact Us
    • Contact Us
    • E Newsbulletins
    • Publish
    • Advertise
    • Law Student Writing Contest
    • Search
  • Quick Links
    • Legal News Podcast
    • Type of Law
      • Antitrust Law
      • Bankruptcy & Restructuring
      • Biotech, Food & Drug
      • Business of Law
      • Construction & Real Estate
      • Cybersecurity Media & FCC
      • Election & Legislative
      • Environmental & Energy
      • Family, Estates & Trusts
      • Financial, Securities & Banking
      • Global
      • Health Care Law
      • Immigration
      • Insurance
      • Intellectual Property Law
      • Labor & Employment
      • Litigation
      • Public Services, Infrastructure, Transportation
      • Tax
      • White Collar Crime & Consumer Rights
    • E Newsbulletins
    • Legal Educational Events
    • Law Student Writing Contest
    • NLR Blog
    • Contact Us
    • Search
  • ENEWSBULLETINS

46

New Articles
Bottom Row Image
Advertisement

February 07, 2023

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis
  • OFSI Annual Review: April 2021 to August 2022 by: Rosie Naylor and Michael E. Ruck
  • Ten Rules For Group Decision Making By The Man Who Wrote The Book by: Keith Paul Bishop

February 06, 2023

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis
  • NNI Publishes Supplement to the President’s 2023 Budget Request by: Lynn L. Bergeson and Carla N. Hutton
  • This Week in 340B: January 31 – February 6, 2023 by: Emily J. Cook and Reuben Bank
  • SECURE 2.0 Series Part 9: Now It’s Easier Than Ever to Clean Up Those... by: Craig A. Day
  • Announcement: Recent Regulatory Agendas Show Numerous Delayed Awaited... by: Gregory R. Wall and Matthew Z. Leopold
  • Class Actions 101 by: Tycko & Zavareei Whistleblower Practice Group
  • EEOC Releases Comprehensive Guidance Regarding Job Applicants and... by: Emily K. Harvin
  • FTC Extends ‘Green Guides’ Comment Period to April 24 by: Laura Siegel Rabinowitz and Donald S. Stein
  • Massachusetts Paid Family and Medical Leave Act Update by: Sara J. Higgins
  • New Jersey’s Expanded WARN Obligation to Take Effect in April 2023 by: Carrie Hoffman
  • OSHA Increases Maximum Penalties and Announces Significant New... by: Brian Hurt and William J. Wahoff
  • Department of Justice Withdraws Key Healthcare Antitrust Policy... by: John D. Carroll and David R. Garcia
  • Illinois Supreme Court: All BIPA Claims Subject to Five-Year Statute... by: Robert D. Boley and Paula M. Ketcham
  • Federal Communications Commission Authorizes Use of Automated and... by: Paul C. Besozzi
  • Check the List: Is OFCCP Ready to Release Your Company’s EEO-1 Report? by: Lauren B. Hicks
  • Illinois Supreme Court Rules on BIPA Class Action Lawsuit by: Hunton Andrews Kurth’s Privacy and Cybersecurity
  • The RADV Final Rule and Advance Notice of CY 2024 Capitation Rates:... by: Christine Burke Worthen and Mike Segal
  • Who Has My Data? EU Court Rules GDPR Requires Disclosure of Data... by: Benjamin William Perry and Rachel M. LaBruyere
  • EEOC Announces Enforcement Priorities for 2023-2027 by: Dan Syed
  • Weekly IRS Roundup January 30 – February 3, 2023 by: Sarah M. Raben
  • Delaware Court of Chancery Determines that Corporate Officers Owe... by: Frank M. Placenti and Barbara A. Jones
  • 100% That’s My Trademark: Common Terms Can Be Source Identifiers... by: Matthew J. Smith
  • How to Use "Voice of Customer" Data to Better Market Your... by: Meranda M. Vieyra
  • San Francisco Passes Ordinance Mandating Paid Military Leave by: Harold R. Jones and Melissa J. Kendra
  • CPPA Board Votes to Send Final CPRA Regs to the Office of... by: Alan L. Friel and Elizabeth A. Spencer Berthiaume
  • Weekly Bankruptcy Alert February 6, 2023 by: Bankruptcy & Creditors' Rights
  • Title 22 is Governing Law in California – Think Twice Before Adopting... by: Rebecca B. Hoyes and Tish R. Pickett
  • DOJ Withdraws Long-Standing Health Care Antitrust Enforcement Policy... by: E. John Steren and Patricia M. Wagner
  • Impressing a Robot: EEOC Takes a Byte Out of AI Based Hiring (US) by: Labor and Employment Practice Group Squire Patton Boggs
  • California Attorney General’s New Privacy Enforcement Targets are... by: Jason C. Gavejian and Joseph J. Lazzarotti
  • CPPA Approves Proposed Final CPRA Regulations for Submission to OAL by: Hunton Andrews Kurth’s Privacy and Cybersecurity
  • Powered By Foley Episode 5: Projects & Money Recap – Growth and... by: Natalie S. Neals and Darin M. Lowder
  • ATDS CASE AGAINST DMS PROCEEDS: Pro Per Plaintiff Scores Unusual... by: Eric J. Troutman
  • Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023 Extends Telehealth Waivers by: Gina L. Bertolini and Leah D'Aurora Richardson
  • New and Greener ROZ Template by: David van Dijk and Barbara Klootwijk
  • California Court Upholds Percentage Bonus, Without Recalculating... by: Paul R. Lynd
  • Cardiology: The New Darling of Private Equity Investment by: Roger D. Strode
  • Kerry Inc. Pleads Guilty to Unsanitary Manufacturing Charges for... by: Food and Drug Law at Keller and Heckman
  • Honchariw: The Enforceability of Late Fees in California by: Julie A. Schoepf and Marci L. Morgan Cox
  • Operation Nightingale: Fraudulent Nursing Diploma Scheme and Its... by: Sophia Temis
  • 2024 New York Budget Proposes Wide-Ranging Transaction Approval... by: David Manko and Jonian Rafti
  • Even-handed Thievery: SEC Sanctions Unregistered Investment Adviser... by: Peter D. Hutcheon
  • Sanctions Update—January 2023 by: Rosie Naylor and Michael E. Ruck
  • CFPB Hosts Hearing on Appraisal Bias by: James W. Wright, Jr. and Britney M. Crawford
  • Abusive Arbitrage Devices – It’s Time to Get Reacquainted by: Cynthia C. Mog
  • Available Options for Completing Form I-9 in Remote-Work Scenarios by: Caterina Cappellari
  • CIPA SUNDAY: Google Wins On Motion to Dismiss CIPA Claim! by: Brittany A. Andres
  • Assembly Member Takes Another Run At Digital Financial Asset Law by: Keith Paul Bishop

February 05, 2023

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis
  • Kerry Inc. Pleads Guilty and Agrees to Pay $19.228 Million in... by: United States Department of Justice (DOJ)

February 04, 2023

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis
  • Increase in Large and Small Shareholder Activists by: Joel I. Papernik and Ivan J. Presant
  • New York Courts Continue to Assert Personal Jurisdiction over Foreign... by: Shin Y. Hahn
  • 9 Famous and Groundbreaking Black Lawyers in History by: Sarah Bottorff

Article By

David T. Fischer
Sean M. Cuddihy

Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP
False Claims Act Defense
Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP full service Global 100 law firm handling corporate law

Related Practices & Jurisdictions


  • Government Contracts, Maritime & Military Law
  • Health Law & Managed Care
  • Criminal Law / Business Crimes
  • All Federal
  • Printer-friendly
  • Email this Article
  • REPRINTS & PERMISSIONS
Tweet
Advertisement

Health Care Suits at Center Stage in DOJ’s FCA Recovery Report for FY 2018

Friday, January 11, 2019

The Department of Justice (DOJ) recently released its annual statistical report on recoveries and new matters under the False Claims Act (FCA). The aggregate reported recovery of $2.8 billion for fiscal year (FY) 2018 is the lowest such total since FY 2009 and is 17% lower than last year’s total and less than half of FY 2014’s all-time high recovery of over $6.1 billion. As the table below shows, however, DOJ’s and private qui tam relators’ levels of enforcement activity on behalf of the Departments of Health and Human Services (HHS) and Defense (DOD) in FY 2018 remained consistent with recent trends.

Notably, aggregate recoveries on behalf of government programs not under DOD or HHS oversight hit their lowest total since FY 2010. Just four years ago, as part of the aftermath of the subprime mortgage crisis, this “Other” category included over $3.1 billion recovered from financial institutions in connection with federally insured mortgages and loans. This past year, however, the Commissioner of the Federal Housing Administration announced that this agency would seek FCA enforcement less often, in response to a perception that such enforcement has deterred major lenders from participating in federal loan programs.

With the exception of 2014’s housing crisis crackdown, health care fraud cases have yielded a plurality share of FCA recoveries every year since FY 1996. The new matter tallies in DOJ’s latest report suggest that this trend in recoveries is unlikely to change in the immediate future. Out of 767 new referrals, investigations and suits initiated in FY 2018—many of which will continue into 2019 and beyond—58% (446 matters) took the form of qui tam actions against defendants participating in HHS programs. The tables below show the FY 2018 new matter totals compared to those reported in recent years.

One additional curiosity: each December, DOJ not only releases aggregate figures for its most recent fiscal year of FCA enforcement, but presents those figures in tables showing recoveries and new matters by category dating back to the FCA’s legislative overhaul in 1986. As noted previously on this blog, DOJ’s annual reports sometimes contain surprising inconsistencies from year to year. DOJ acknowledged to Law360 last year that it sometimes updates prior years’ recovery totals as appeals from initial judgments work their way through the courts or as additional parties implicated in a matter reach and revise settlements. (These adjustments only partly account for the discrepancies between tables that accompanied DOJ’s FY 2017 statistical report press release in December 2017 and the update it ultimately released in January 2018.)

Adjustments to DOJ’s statistics on cases from the more distant past are harder to understand. For example, last year DOJ reported that the total amount recovered in FY 1999 from qui tam cases in which the Government had intervened was $406,761,680, but the corresponding cell in this year’s table states that figure was only $396,402,128—a drop of over $10 million in Government-recovered funds associated with one or more cases that ostensibly concluded nearly 20 years ago. More puzzling still is DOJ’s indication that it initiated 120 new matters on behalf of DOD in FY 1989 (the year one of the authors of this post was born) and 45 such matters in FY 1997. Last year’s report stated those numbers as 122 and 48, respectively. A comparison of the FY 2017 and FY 2018 reports reveals dozens of such minor inconsistencies. At least some of these discrepancies are clearly attributable to data-entry errors, but it is unclear to what extent (or to what purpose) DOJ undertakes a wholesale recalculation of its archival figures for each year’s report.

Questionable minor details aside, the high-level trends on display in the official FY 2018 FCA enforcement statistics demonstrate that health care providers and other entities doing business with the government are likely to face substantial enforcement action under the FCA once again this year.

Copyright © 2023, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP.National Law Review, Volume IX, Number 11
  • Printer-friendly
  • Email this Article
  • REPRINTS & PERMISSIONS
Advertisement

Latest Legal News & Analysis

OFSI Annual Review: April 2021 to August 2022
K&L Gates
Ten Rules For Group Decision Making By The Man Who Wrote The Book
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
NNI Publishes Supplement to the President’s 2023 Budget Request
Bergeson & Campbell, P.C.
This Week in 340B: January 31 – February 6, 2023
McDermott Will & Emery
SECURE 2.0 Series Part 9: Now It’s Easier Than Ever to Clean Up Those Nasty...
Jackson Lewis P.C.
Advertisement

TRENDING LEGAL ANALYSIS

Department of Justice Withdraws Key Healthcare Antitrust Policy Statements
By
Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP
Illinois Supreme Court: All BIPA Claims Subject to Five-Year Statute of Limitations
By
ArentFox Schiff LLP
Federal Communications Commission Authorizes Use of Automated and Prerecorded Voice...
By
Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP
Check the List: Is OFCCP Ready to Release Your Company’s EEO-1 Report?
By
Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.
Illinois Supreme Court Rules on BIPA Class Action Lawsuit
By
Hunton Andrews Kurth
The RADV Final Rule and Advance Notice of CY 2024 Capitation Rates: Provider...
By
Nelson Mullins
Advertisement

Upcoming Legal Education Events

How To…Comply with Obligations to Caregiver Employees
Tuesday, February 7, 2023
Healthcare Fraud & Abuse: 2022 Year in Review
Tuesday, February 7, 2023
REACH 30/30 February 8, 2023
Wednesday, February 8, 2023
TSCA 30/30 Webinar - February 8, 2023
Wednesday, February 8, 2023

About this Author

David T. Fischer, Sheppard Mullin, Government Contracts lawyer, Investigations attorney
David T. Fischer
Special Counsel

David T. Fischer is a special counsel in the Government Contracts, Investigations & International Trade Practice Group in the firm's Washington, D.C. office.

Mr. Fischer's practice focuses on representing individuals and companies in civil and regulatory government enforcement actions, including false claims act and antitrust matters. Mr. Fischer has represented both plaintiffs and defendants in these matters, including qui tam whistleblowers in False Claims Act matters, and has conducted internal investigations for national and...

[email protected]
202-747-3270
www.sheppardmullin.com
Sean M. Cuddihy
Sean Cuddihy, Sheppard Mullin Law Firm, Corporate Law Attorney
Associate

Sean M. Cuddihy is an associate in the Corporate Practice Group in the firm's Washington, D.C. office.

[email protected]
202-747-2649
www.sheppardmullin.com
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
National Law Review
  • Antitrust Law
  • Bankruptcy & Restructuring
  • Biotech, Food, & Drug
  • Business of Law
  • Election & Legislative
  • Construction & Real Estate
  • Environmental & Energy
  • Family, Estates & Trusts
  • Financial, Securities & Banking
  • Global
  • Health Care Law
  • Immigration
  • Intellectual Property Law
  • Insurance
  • Labor & Employment
  • Litigation
  • Cybersecurity Media & FCC
  • Public Services, Infrastructure, Transportation
  • Tax
  • White Collar Crime & Consumer Rights
  • Coronavirus News
  • Law Student Writing Competition
  • Sign Up For NLR Bulletins
  • Terms of Use
  • Privacy Policy
  • FAQs

 

As a woman owned company, The National Law Review is a certified member of the Women's Business Enterprise National Council

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be  a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.

The National Law Review - National Law Forum LLC 3 Grant Square #141 Hinsdale, IL 60521  Telephone  (708) 357-3317 or toll free (877) 357-3317.  If you would ike to contact us via email please click here.

Copyright ©2023 National Law Forum, LLC