The 2015 Balanced Budget Act (BBA) requires that federal agencies make inflationary adjustments to civil monetary penalties on a yearly basis to account for inflation using calculations based on the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Consumer Price Index. In recent years, these increases have occurred less frequently. But on December 13, 2021 the Department of Justice published a final rule that increases the civil penalties in False Claims Act actions for violations that that occurred after November 2, 2015, the date the BBA was enacted. (more…)
Senator Charles Grassley, who supported the nomination of Merrick Garland for Attorney General, sent the then-nominee a letter on February 24 to ask the Department of Justice to work to “further clarify and strengthen the False Claims Act.” As we reported in previous posts (here, here, and here), Senator Grassley has publicly criticized DOJ’s position that its authority to dismiss FCA suits over relators’ objections is virtually unfettered, and has criticized the materiality standard established by the Supreme Court in Escobar as lending undue weight to role of government conduct (or lack thereof) in response to allegations of fraud. The letter discloses that Senator Grassley is working with “a cadre of bipartisan Senate colleagues” to “strengthen” and “improve” the False Claims Act by narrowing the materiality requirement, and by requiring a court to assess the merits of a qui tam in deciding whether to grant a motion to dismiss filed by DOJ. We will continue to monitor and report on any such legislation that may ultimately be proposed.
In a July 30 speech from the floor of the Senate honoring National Whistleblowers Day, Senator Charles Grassley announced that he is working on legislation that would “clarify” purported “ambiguities created by the courts” regarding the proper interpretation of the False Claims Act.
The 2015 Balanced Budget Act (BBA) requires that federal agencies make inflationary adjustments to civil monetary penalties on a yearly basis to account for inflation using calculations based on the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Consumer Price Index. On June 19, 2020, DOJ issued a final rule that will increase the civil penalties in FCA actions for penalties assessed after this date. The prior minimum False Claims Act penalty of $11,181 will be increased to $11,665 per claim. The maximum penalty will also increase from $22,363 to $23,331 per claim. The revised civil penalties, once adopted, will apply to all assessments of FCA civil penalties after the effective date, including penalties associated with violation predating the adjustment, but assessed on or after the date that the increases go into effect.
Last Thursday one of the subcommittees of the House Judiciary Committee held a hearing on Oversight of the False Claims Act. Four stakeholders represented the diverse viewpoints of the plaintiffs’ bar, a compliance program reform initiative, the defense bar, and in-house counsel (copies of their prepared written testimony can be found here, here, here, and here).
Buried in the budget legislation recently signed into law by President Obama is a provision that will increase FCA civil penalties significantly. The FCA’s civil penalties were last increased by 10%, to their current levels of $5,500-$11,000, in 1999. However, the budget law requires DOJ to issue new regulations by July 1, 2016 to increase those penalties. The law also requires that the penalties be automatically adjusted each year thereafter
Pressure continues to build for the Department of Justice to hold corporate executives criminally responsible for corporate misconduct. As previously discussed here and here, Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates recently announced new guidance that the DOJ will focus increasingly on prosecuting high level executives for corporate wrongdoing. Two United States Senators, Richard Blumenthal (D-Connecticut) and Robert Casey (D-Pennsylvania), have also taken up this cause, and have introduced the “Hide No Harm Act of 2015.” The Hide No Harm Act, if passed, would make it a crime for “any responsible corporate officer” with “actual knowledge of a serious danger associated with” any covered product, service, or business practice not to “verbally inform an appropriate Federal agency” within 24 hours and not to warn possibly affected individuals “as soon as practical.” The failure to do so would be punishable by up to five years in prison.
One of the key components of the proposed bill is an anti-retaliation provision that prohibits companies from taking adverse employment action against any employee that “informed a Federal agency, warned employees, or informed other individuals of a serious danger of a covered product.” This provision provides broad protection for whistleblowers in this context.
We will closely monitor the progress of this bill and provide updates as they become available.
Posted by Ellyce Cooper, Michael Andolina and Amanda Farfel
On April 28, 2015, the Senate unanimously approved S. 304, the Motor Vehicle Safety Whistleblower Act. The bipartisan legislation was reported out of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and placed on the Senate Legislative Calendar on April 13, 2015. The Committee modified the legislation, including additional provisions regarding the protection of whistleblower identities, extending the deadline for the Secretary to promulgate regulations consistent with the statute from 12 to 18 months, and providing that the Secretary may make an award to a whistleblower prior to the promulgation of the regulations. The legislation, as passed, can be found here, and the Committee Report can be found here. We first reported on the proposed legislation here.
The legislation now moves to the House of Representatives for consideration. We will continue to monitor the legislation.
Posted by Amanda Farfel, Ellyce Cooper and Michael Andolina
On February 26, 2015, the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation approved the Motor Vehicle Safety Whistleblower Act. The full text of the Motor Vehicle Safety Whistleblower Act can be found here. Introduced by Senators John Thune (South Dakota) and Bill Nelson (Florida), the proposed legislation prescribes certain incentives to whistleblowers who voluntarily provide information relating to motor vehicle defects that are likely to cause unreasonable risk of death or serious physical injury. The proposed whistleblower provisions are very similar to those of the Dodd-Frank Act. Highlights of the proposed legislation include:
- Financial incentive to whistleblowers up to 30% of collected sanctions in excess of $1 million.
- Applies to original information relating to any motor vehicle defect, noncompliance, or any violation or alleged violation of any notification or reporting requirement likely to cause unreasonable risk of death or serious physical injury.
- Applies to violations that predate legislation.
- Whistleblowers must first report or attempt to report the information to the company, with limited exceptions, and those who are convicted of a crime in connection with the violation would not be eligible for an award.
- Protection of the whistleblowers’ identities.
The proposed legislation will now head to the Senate floor for a vote. We will continue to follow the legislation and provide updates.
Posted by Scott Stein and Brenna Jenny
In May, the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Inspector General (“OIG”) published two proposed rules, one expanding its exclusion authority (“Proposed Exclusion Rule”) and the other broadening and strengthening the availability of civil monetary penalties (“Proposed CMP Rule“). Some of these proposals merely codify provisions of the Affordable Care Act (“ACA”), whereas others are a product of the OIG’s own initiative, but interwoven within both are changes reflecting the influence of the False Claims Act on the enforcement landscape.
For example, in the Proposed Exclusion Rule, the OIG is proposing to add a provision expressly stating that there is no time limitation for the conduct that can form the basis for exclusion, regardless of whether the conduct is based on the violation of a statute with a statute of limitations. 79 Fed. Reg. 26810, 26815 (May 9, 2014). Much of the OIG’s rationale reflected its desire to be able to match the time lag often associated with FCA litigation. The OIG explained that with a time limitation, it might feel compelled to file a notice of proposed exclusion against a defendant in a pending FCA suit to avoid losing its window of opportunity, even where it might subsequently decide against exclusion with a fuller understanding of the allegations.
The OIG also proposes to borrow definitional terms from the FCA for its own enforcement purposes. As a consequence of being excluded, individuals and entities cannot receive payment “for any item or service furnished” to a federal healthcare program (“FHCP”). The OIG’s new definition would expand the meaning of “furnish” to encompass not only individuals and entities who “submit claims to” FHCPs, but also those who “request or receive payment from” FHCPs, such as organizations that receive block grants from FHCPs. While this definition generally makes explicit the government’s pre-existing enforcement approach, the OIG specifically notes that this “revised wording would be consistent with the False Claims Act’s broad definition of ‘claim'” and “would appropriately encompass all current and future payment methodologies.” Similarly, in the Proposed CMP Rule, the OIG plans to codify the ACA’s new source of CMP liability, based on “any false statement, omission, or misrepresentation of a material fact in any application, bid, or contract to participate or enroll as a provider of services or a supplier under a Federal healthcare program.” The ACA did not define “material,” and the OIG proposes to define the word so as to “mirror the False Claims Act definition.”