A jury returned a verdict for an employer, a subsidiary of a publicly traded life sciences company, finding that a former employee did not meet his burden of proving he was terminated in retaliation for engaging in False Claims Act (FCA)-protected activity.
A sales manager alleged that he was terminated in retaliation for making a complaint under the FCA. The employer maintained that the plaintiff did not make a FCA complaint, and he was terminated due to poor sales performance after being suspended by two hospital systems for misconduct.
In order for the plaintiff to prevail on his FCA retaliation claim, he had to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that:
In delivering its verdict after deliberating for nearly two days, the Maryland jury found that the plaintiff did not meet his burden on the first element of the claim — whether he engaged in FCA-protected activity designed to stop a current or future violation of the FCA.
The defense emphasized that whether the plaintiff engaged in FCA-protected activity was not subject to many factual disputes. The jury heard and saw evidence that the plaintiff's complaint did not relate to any current or future false claim to the government for payment, as required by the FCA, since he reported...
A federal jury has convicted a San Francisco man of conspiracy, wire fraud, and money laundering in connection with a scheme involving fraudulent insurance claims on already-wrecked vehicles, pros...