Qui Tam

The firm has represented relators in a variety of False Claims Act cases. For example:

  • United States ex rel. Thompson v. Columbia Healthcare, Inc., et al., No. 99-3302 (RCL) (Part of 01-MS-50 (RCL) (D.D.C.). 
    We represented a relator and worked with the Department of Justice to secure a settlement of $225 million from Columbia HCA for falsely seeking and obtaining Medicare reimbursements. Of the total settlement, our client received $47 million. The United States intervened in the case, while declining to intervene in several other cases alleging similar misconduct.
  • United States ex rel. Fowler, et al. v. Lockheed Martin Corporation, et al., No. 5:99CV00170-R (D. Ky.).  
    The firm represented a group of individual qui tam relators in a False Claims Act action that sought to recover civil damages and fines for the United States Government from Lockheed Martin Corporation, and several predecessor corporations, for making false statements to the United States Department of Energy regarding the nuclear waste materials and environmental hazards at the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant in Paducah, Kentucky. The Department of Justice intervened in the case.

The firm has also filed amicus curiae briefs on behalf of Taxpayers Against Fraud, the leading whistleblower advocacy group, in important qui tam cases. For example:

  • Cook County v. Chandler, 538 U.S. 119 (2003).  
    We filed an amicus brief successfully urging the Supreme Court to hold that the FCA allows suits against cities, counties, and other local government entities. As urged in our brief for TAF, the Court unanimously rejected the position — previously embraced by the Court itself, and accepted by all of the other parties and amici in the case, including the Solicitor General — that FCA treble damages are punitive in nature. The Court held that treble damages are entirely remedial and therefore that doctrines against imposingpunitive damages on governmental bodies are wholly irrelevant. See 538 U.S. at 129-34.
  • Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Banks, 125 S. Ct. 826 (2005).  
    The Court held that a money judgment that constitutes income is taxable to the litigant, including any amount paid to an attorney as a contingent fee. We had filed an amicus brief on behalf of Taxpayers Against Fraud Education Fund, urging the Court to negate any implication that its decision governed the separate question of whether the entirety of a qui tam relator’s award, including any portion paid to an attorney as a contingent fee, would be taxable to the relator. Citing our brief, the Supreme Court specifically refrained from reaching this issue. 125 S. Ct. at 871.
↑ Top of Page