New Qui Tam Update From Mintz Levin's Health Care Enforcement Defense Group

Earlier this month, Mintz Levin's Health Care Enforcement Defense Group published its most recent Health Care Qui Tam Update that looks at 18 health care-related qui tam cases unsealed in October and November of 2016.

The Update presents two unique cases in-depth and covers some of the trends revealed in these recently unsealed cases:

• The cases identified were filed in federal district courts in 12 states, including California (5), New York (3), Alabama (1), Arkansas (1), Florida (1), Hawaii (1), Kansas (1), New Jersey (1), New Mexico (1), North Carolina (1), Oklahoma (1), and Pennsylvania (1).
• The federal government declined to intervene in nine of the 18 cases. Five more cases were voluntarily dismissed before any action was taken by the government. The federal government intervened, in whole or in part, in three cases. In the two remaining cases, the government's intervention status could not be discerned from the unsealed filings.
• Nature of the Claims
  • Nine of the recently unsealed cases included both state and federal claims.
  • Four involved allegations of unlawful kickbacks. Of these, two also alleged violations of the Stark Law (42 U.S.C. § 1395nn).
  • Claims for relief under state or federal anti-whistleblower retaliation provisions appeared in nine of the 18 recently unsealed cases.
  • The cases remained under seal for an average of just over two years (774 days). The median number of days cases remained under seal was 573.5. United States ex rel. DiBenedetto v. Vahedi, which was heard in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, was under seal for the shortest amount of time, at 104 days. United States ex rel. Harmsen v. Moore County Dental Care Center, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, was under seal the longest, at 2,075 days (over five and a half years)
• In nearly three-quarters of the unsealed cases (13 of 18), relators were current or former employees of the defendant.

See HERE for the full Update and to find our key takeaways from the cases discussed.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.