Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
The historical antecedents of qui tam statutes lie in Roman and Anglo-Saxon law. [3] Roman criminal prosecutions were typically initiated by private citizens and beginning no later than the Lex Pedia, it became common for Roman criminal statutes to offer a portion of the defendant's forfeited property to the initiator of the prosecution as a reward. [3]
intervene in one or more counts of the pending qui tam action. This intervention expresses the Government's intention to participate as a plaintiff in prosecuting that count of the complaint. The department intervenes in fewer than 25% of filed qui tam actions. decline to intervene in one or all counts of the pending qui tam action. If the ...
Under federal law, health care fraud in the United States is defined, and made illegal, primarily by the health care fraud statute in 18 U.S.C. § 1347 states [4] (a) Whoever knowingly executes, or attempts to execute, a scheme or artifice—
In November, the hospice agreed to pay $3 million to settle the case, a sum substantially less than the $10 million the bogus claims cost Medicare, according to a failed appeal of the deal. (Whistleblowers and their attorneys receive a cut of government qui tam settlements.)
Franklin v. Parke-Davis is a lawsuit filed in 1996 against Parke-Davis, a division of Warner-Lambert Company, and eventually against Pfizer (which bought Warner-Lambert in 2000) under the qui tam provisions of the False Claims Act. [1]
A qui tam (in the name of the king) action may be brought by any party (as a relator) against an entity that is fraudulently collecting money from the United States government by filing false claims. The party bringing the suit – the relator – must have possession of information substantiating the claim of fraud against the government.
CVS Pharmacy Inc. is being sued by the U.S. Department of Justice for allegedly filling illegal prescriptions and seeking reimbursement from federal health care programs for unlawful medications.
Under the settlement, FORBA will pay $24 million plus interest to the US and several states. The investigation was spurred by three qui tam lawsuits filed by former employees in Maryland, Virginia and South Carolina in late 2007 and early 2008. The US Justice Department found that FORBA was liable for: