Where a motion for fees has been filed by the defendants after they were awarded summary judgment under the False Claims Act, that motion should be allowed based on the vexatious nature of the relator’s conduct.
“In this qui tam action under the False Claims Act (‘FCA’), the Court granted summary judgment to Defendants with regard to Relator’s claims concerning polymerase chain reaction (‘PCR’)-based testing for urinary tract infections (‘UTIs’). … Defendants now move for an award of attorney’s fees incurred defending against those claims since the filing of Relator’s amended complaint on April 4, 2022. …
“… The key question, then, is whether Relator’s UTI testing claims were ‘clearly vexatious[] or brought primarily for purposes of harassment.’ 31 U.S.C. §3730(d)(4). …
“Defendants argue that Relator’s UTI testing claims were clearly vexatious and brought primarily for purposes of harassment because Relator ‘knowingly manufactur[ed] false claims solely to substantiate a qui tam action.’ … The Court agrees and finds Relator’s conduct to be extremely troubling. The undisputed summary judgment record demonstrated that even though Dr. Craig Deligdish, the owner of Relator (a medical practice), believed PCR UTI testing was never medically necessary, he ‘instructed his staff to order [such] testing from [Defendant] MD Labs even when the provider had selected a [cheaper] test for the patient.’ … ‘In other words, Dr. Deligdish caused submission of false claims for PCR testing...
Deception and media manipulation have always been part of warfare, but AI has taken them to a new level. Entrust reports that deepfakes were created every five minutes in 2024, while the European P...