Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
[13] The jury found him guilty of 23 counts of health care fraud and 30 counts of false statements related to health care matters. [14] He faced 475 years. That would give him 10 years for 13 health care fraud counts and 20 years for 10 others because those 10 others resulted in serious bodily injury, and 5 years for false statements related to ...
In 2014, whistleblowers filed over 700 False Claims Act lawsuits. [21] In 2014, the Department of Justice had its highest annual recovery in False Claims Act history, obtaining more than $6.1 billion in settlements and judgments from civil cases involving fraud and false claims against the government. [4]
Fraudulent claims can be one of may be identified as "built up", meaning that they are legitimate claims that are exaggerated in their value, or they may be false claims for damages that never occurred. [48] For built up claims, insurance companies usually try to negotiate the claim down to an appropriate amount. [49] \
The False Claims Act lets whistleblowers sue on behalf of the federal government, and share in recoveries. Valisure first sued GSK on behalf of the United States and more than two dozen states in ...
The writ fell into disuse in England and Wales following the Common Informers Act 1951 but remains current in the United States under the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3729 et seq., which allows a private individual, or "whistleblower" (or relator), with knowledge of past or present fraud committed against the federal government to bring suit ...
Almost 200 people have been charged in a nationwide operation probing false health care claims involving approximately $2.75 billion in losses, the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced Thursday.
A health clinic in a Montana town plagued by deadly asbestos contamination must pay the government almost $6 million in penalties and damages after it submitted hundreds of false asbestos claims ...
The Act, however, left advertising and claims of effectiveness unregulated as the Supreme Court interpreted it to mean only that ingredients on labels had to be accurate. Language in the 1912 Sherley Amendment, meant to close this loophole, was limited to regulating claims that were false and fraudulent, creating the need to show intent.