Is Whistleblowing Under the Federal False Claims Act Over?
On this episode of Cut to the Chase:, attorney Dan Miller comes on to the show to discuss his $61 million verdict against Eli Lilly regarding its submission of pricing information under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program. Also appearing on the show was Dr. Brian Becker, an economist who served as Plaintiff's expert. The whistleblower community has been alarmed at a recent 7th Circuit Appellate decision U.S. ex rel. Schutte v. SuperValu, Inc. which seemingly undermines the amendments to the False Claims Act in 1986. To prevail in a whistleblower act under the Act, the plaintiff must show that the defendant knowingly defrauded the government. The 1986 amendments define knowingly to include actual knowledge, deliberate ignorance of the truth or falsity of information, or acts in reckless disregard of the truth of falsity of information. The Supervalue case essentially ruled that the defendant could defend itself if it could come up with some plausible interpretation of the law to justify its prior behavior, even if such justification was created after the fact. Listen in to the episode to see how Dan prevailed and overcame the Supervalu's new hurdle.
And obviously, if you believe you have information that a contractor is defrauding the goverment, give Dan a call. Here is a link to his information.
And for those attorneys needing a top flight economist to be your expert, give Dr. Becker a call. https://www.linkedin.com/in/brian-becker-083a613/