On December 6, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in United States, ex rel. Polansky v. Executive Health Resources, Inc. The case concerns the issue of whether or not the U.S. government can dismiss False Claim Act whistleblowers’ qui tam suits after initially declining to intervene in them. According to whistleblower attorneys, the case has tremendous implications for the efficacy of the False Claims Act.
“All of the Justices’ questioning at oral argument appear to be deferential to the government’s position that the DOJ can dismiss a case that it did not initially intervene in,” said whistleblower attorney David Colapinto, a founding partner at the qui tam firm Kohn, Kohn & Colapinto. “However, the Court is struggling with what standard, if any, should be applied by courts at a hearing on the government’s motion to dismiss a whistleblower’s False Claims Act suit, years after the government has declined to intervene in the case.”
“During the oral argument the government took the position that it’s just ‘too bad’ if the whistleblower has spent ‘a ton of money’ and years litigating the False Claims Act suit. That was brushed off as a reasonable risk that every whistleblower takes when filing suit,” continued Colapinto, who has represented False Claims Act whistleblowers since the 1980s. “This turns the False Claims Act statute on its head. Congress created the right of a whistleblower to bring these suits without the government to protect the taxpayers.”
“If the...
I learned about hantavirus misinformation this week in the same way I now learn about most public health misinformation: My followers sent it to me. Within hours of the first headlines about a han...