Tag: False Claims Act (FCA)

  • What DEI Changes Mean for Employers Featuring Patice Holland

    What DEI Changes Mean for Employers Featuring Patice Holland

    What DEI Changes Mean for Employers Featuring Patice Holland

    Concepts: DEI; Employment Law; Discrimination

    As political forces target Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion programs, companies reassessing their DEI strategies must tread carefully—because, while the landscape has shifted, employment discrimination law has not.

    Joining me on the Emerging Litigation Podcast is employment law attorney Patice L. Holland, a Principal at WoodsRogers in Roanoke, Va. Patice shares with me what companies need to know as they reassess their DEI initiatives in light of President Trump’s recent executive orders and increasing public and political pressure.

    Patice explains that while the administration has moved to eliminate disparate impact liability and deprioritize federal enforcement, core legal protections under Title VII and state laws remain fully intact. Employers—especially federal contractors—face complex new certification requirements and exposure to potential False Claims Act liability, while private businesses must weigh operational risk, employee morale, and public perception in their decisions.

    We also examine the ripple effects across corporate America—from Costco and Apple, which continue to be invested in DEI, to Target and Amazon, which scaled back initiatives and faced backlash. Patice suggests practical considerations for navigating any changes, emphasizing clear communication, leadership buy-in, and careful risk assessment.

    Listen in as she explains the real impact and power of the executive orders, how obligations differ for government contractors and private companies, the legal and strategic risks of altering DEI policies, and the real-world business consequences of staying the course—or stepping back.

    Have thoughts or want to contribute to future episodes? Email: Editor@LitigationConferences.com

    Tom Hagy
    Litigation Enthusiast and
    Host of the Emerging Litigation Podcast
    Home Page
    LinkedIn

    Patice Holland

    Patice HollandPrincipal, WoodsRogers

    Patice is an attorney with a diverse litigation practice and experience. She focuses primarily on employment litigation defense, employment investigations, transportation law (FELA, SAA, LIA), general civil and commercial litigation, commercial and residential landlord-tenant litigation, and insurance defense.

    She has extensive experience litigating cases in state and federal courts as well as in mediation. Through her litigation experience, Patice has garnered extensive knowledge in defending witness and document subpoenas and FOIA requests.

    As Chair of the firm’s E-Discovery group, she advises clients on all aspects of E-discovery, including litigation holds, custodial interviews/data collection and preservation, and review and production of electronically stored information (ESI). Patice has been involved in extensive discovery matters in complex litigation in both state and federal courts. She earned her J.D. from Stetson University College of Law.

    podcast logo face
    
    

    Want to appear on the Emerging Litigation Podcast?

    
    

    Send us your idea! 

    It might even make this man smile. “But I am smiling here.”

    No. No he’s not.

  • Facing PFAS lawsuit, Apple claims watch bands are safe, but what does the evidence say?

    Facing PFAS lawsuit, Apple claims watch bands are safe, but what does the evidence say?

    Emerging Litigation Podcast

    Emerging Litigation PodcastProduced by HB Litigation

    Interviews with leading attorneys and other subject matter experts on new twists in the law and how the law is responding to new twists in the world.

    Interested in contributing an article? Email us at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

    Facing PFAS lawsuit, Apple claims watch bands are safe, but what does the evidence say?

    By: Justin Ward

    The plaintiffs argue that Apple marketed its smartwatch as ‘the ultimate device for a healthy life’—while knowing it contained hazardous forever chemicals.

    Apple has been doing damage control ever since a study found that its smartwatch bands contained “elevated levels” of so-called forever chemicals. Lawyers in California also filed a class action lawsuit earlier this year alleging that the company misleadingly marketed the watches as “safe” and “healthy.” The University of Notre Dame tested 22 smartwatch bands coated in fluoroelastomers to make the rubber materials more resistant to sweat and oil. They found that nine of them—including bands used in Apple smartwatches— had “very high concentrations” of perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA). This chemical is a polyfluoroalkyl substance (PFAS), known as a “forever chemical” because it breaks down slowly in the environment and builds up in the human body over time, causing health problems. The company has responded publicly, maintaining that the watch bands are “safe for users to wear” and referring to Apple’s “rigorous testing and analysis” of materials before bringing products to the market.

    At the same time, the plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit point to studies showing that PFAS can be absorbed through the skin. However, the Notre Dame study notes that research on dermal absorption is “limited,” and other research on durable waterproof clothing containing PFAS shows that forever chemicals are less likely to enter through the skin compared to other pathways, such as eating or drinking contaminated food and water or inhaling dust.

    The lawsuit joins other large class action lawsuits alleging that clothing made with PFAS causes lasting health hazards, including cancer. Firefighters have been at the forefront of PFAS litigation nationwide, winning billions in settlements against chemical companies over the use of PFAS in foam. More recently, they’ve turned their attention to protective gear, which is often made by the same companies, including 3M and DuPont. For example, Connecticut firefighters’ unions launched a $5 million lawsuit last summer seeking relief from the companies that produce their equipment. In February, a man in Vallejo sued Gore-Tex for allegedly using PFAS in its raincoats. Notably, REI prevailed in a similar case last year after the plaintiff failed to prove its jackets contained significant levels of PFAS.

    Forever chemicals are ever-present in the environment and can enter the body from multiple sources, so the plaintiffs in the Apple lawsuit may find it difficult to establish that they suffered actual damages from wearing Apple watches versus other more common pathways like inhalation or ingestion. Instead, the plaintiffs are focusing on false advertising as their primary cause of action, highlighting Apple’s marketing of its smartwatch as “the ultimate device for a healthy life.” They argue that Apple deceptively advertised their products as “safe” in violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law. The plaintiffs contended that Apple knew forever chemicals are hazardous and that their products contained PFAS.

    Apple announced in 2022 that it would completely phase out PFAS in its supply chain but claimed that existing materials containing PFAS are “safe during product use.”


    Justin Ward is a Seattle-based investigative reporter specializing in politics, courts, and criminal justice. His work can be found in national and local media outlets, including USA Today, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and The Seattle Stranger. He can be reached at justinwardtexan@yahoo.com.

  • False Claims Act, Health Care Whistleblowers, and Whistling in the Wind with Justin Lugar

    False Claims Act, Health Care Whistleblowers, and Whistling in the Wind with Justin Lugar

    False Claims Act, Health Care Whistleblowers, and Whistling in the Wind with Justin Lugar

    Concepts: Health Care Fraud, Whistleblower Claims, False Claims Act

    The DOJ’s annual report for 2023 revealed that the agency’s Health Care Fraud Unit was its busiest criminal enforcement section, responsible for convicting more than $3.8 billion in False Claims Act and whistleblower claims.

    There has reportedly been an uptick in whistleblower work among law firms and a record number of whistleblower cases. Still, some healthcare providers and hospital systems tend to hide their heads in their scrubs after being served. 

    Today we’re going to talk about how whistleblower cases come about, the benefits of rewarding whistleblowers, how things are done differently outside the U.S., what’s driving the acceleration of this area of law, and best practices when your company is served.

    Drawing on his background as both public servant and private practitioner, my guest, Justin M. Lugar, counsel with WoodsRogers in Roanoke, Virginia, is going to walk through these issues and others.

    Justin represents clients in all types of government investigations. He’s obviously well suited for the task. Prior to WoodsRogers he was Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Western District of Virginia, where he led the Affirmative Civil Enforcement team managing dozens of fraud investigations, many of which had parallel criminal investigations under the False Claims Act and related state statutes.

    Justin served as the Department of Justice’s Civil Health Care Fraud Coordinator, Affirmative Civil Enforcement Coordinator, and Civil Rights Coordinator for the Western District of Virginia. Justin was recently recognized by the Drug Enforcement Agency for his efforts enforcing the Controlled Substances Act, leading to the largest fine assessed against a hospital system in the United States at the time.

    When he was a  federal prosecutor, Justin led investigations involving numerous state and federal agency partners, from the FBI to the IRS to the Department of Energy to the FDA and the Defense Department.

    Justin started his career at a major global firm in London, conducting international investigations around the globe.  But my favorite part of his background is – when he was a religious studies major in college – he lived at a Tibetan Buddhist Monastery in Kathmandu, Nepal. Not to brag, but I just returned from Vermont.

    There is more to Justin’s background, like his LLM in international dispute resolution, which he earned at the School of Oriental and African Studies at the University of London, his J.D. from Liberty University School of Law, and his B.A. from the University of Virginia.

    I hope you enjoy the conversation! If so, give us a rating!

    This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation. The Journal is a collaborative project between HB Litigation Conferences and the vLex Fastcase legal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, and Docket Alarm.

    If you have comments, ideas, or wish to participate, please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

    Tom Hagy
    Litigation Enthusiast and
    Host of the Emerging Litigation Podcast
    Home Page
    LinkedIn

    Justin Lugar

    Justin LugarWoodsRogers

    Drawing on his background as both public servant and private practitioner, Justin represents clients facing all manner of government investigations, including grand jury investigations, congressional investigations, administrative investigations, regulatory inquiries, False Claims Act/whistleblower investigations, RFIs, civil rights investigations, and Inspectors General investigations.

    Prior to joining Woods Rogers, Justin served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Western District of Virginia, where he led the Affirmative Civil Enforcement team in managing dozens of active fraud investigations, many of which had parallel criminal investigations under the False Claims Act and various state analog statutes.

    Justin also served as the Department of Justice’s Civil Health Care Fraud Coordinator, ACE coordinator, and Civil Rights Coordinator for the Western District of Virginia. Justin was recently recognized by the DEA for his efforts in enforcing the Controlled Substances Act, leading to the largest fine assessed against a hospital system in the United States at the time.

    Justin earned his J.D. from Liberty University School of Law.

    podcast logo face
    
    

    Want to appear on the Emerging Litigation Podcast?

    
    

    Send us your idea! 

    It might even make this man smile. “But I am smiling here.”

    No. No he’s not.

  • The False Claims Act with Jack Siegal

    The False Claims Act with Jack Siegal

    The False Claims Act with Jack Siegal

    Joining me to discuss this important civil statute is Jack Siegal of McGlinchey Stafford in Boston. Jack’s practice focuses on financial services litigation, complex commercial disputes, government investigations and white-collar defense, securities litigation, regulatory proceedings, and compliance.

    This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation, a collaborative project between HB Litigation Conferences and the Fastcase legal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, Docket Alarm and, most recently, Judicata. If you have comments or wish to participate in one our projects, or want to tell me how insightful and informative Jack is , please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

    I hope you enjoy the interview, and especially how I managed not to include Jack’s answer to whether my dog could be sued for violating the FCA. “Nope. Not a person,” he said, with zero hesitation. I want to thank Jack for immediately taking on the role as Shiloh’s advocate, and for speaking with me about this important law.  –Tom Hagy

    Unscrupulous contractors have been ripping off the federal government for as long as there has been a federal government. President Lincoln, tired of being sold lame mules and rancid rations, signed the Federal Claims Act into law during The Civil War.

    In the last two decades the government, with the help of whistleblowers, has raked in more than $20 billion. 

  • Biogen Pays 22M To Resolve False Claims Act Charges For Paying Kickbacks

    Biogen Pays 22M To Resolve False Claims Act Charges For Paying Kickbacks

    The Justice Department has announced that Biogen, Inc., has agreed to pay $22 million to resolve claims that it violated the False Claims Act by illegally using foundations as a conduit to pay the copays of Medicare patients taking Biogen’s multiple sclerosis drugs, Avonex and Tysabri. Biogen did not admit liability in reaching the agreement.

    When a Medicare beneficiary obtains a prescription drug covered by Medicare, the beneficiary may be required to make a partial payment, which may take the form of a copayment, coinsurance, or a deductible (collectively “copays”). Congress included copay requirements in the Medicare program, in part, to serve as a check on health care costs, including the prices that pharmaceutical manufacturers can demand for their drugs.
    “The resolution announced today, like prior settlements concerning similar misconduct, demonstrates the government’s commitment to hold accountable companies that pay kickbacks to undermine important constraints on rising drug costs,” said Acting Assistant Attorney Jeffrey Bossert Clark of the Department of Justice’s Civil Division. “Drug companies that illegally manipulate charitable patient assistance programs to subsidize copays for their own products will be held accountable.”
    “Biogen coordinated with ACS to game the foundation system by timing its payments to two foundations with its transfer of financially needy free drug patients, all so that Biogen could obtain significant financial rewards,” said First Assistant United States Attorney Nathaniel R. Mendell. “By treating the foundations simply as conduits to pay the co-pays of its own patients, Biogen violated the anti-kickback statute and undermined Medicare’s co-pay structure, which Congress intended as a safeguard against inflated drug prices. We commend ACS for resolving this matter expeditiously and Biogen for resolving this matter on a cooperative basis.”
    “Kickback schemes can undermine our healthcare system and lead to higher costs for the Medicare program,” said Phillip Coyne, Special Agent in Charge, Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Service’s Boston Regional Office.

    “We will continue to hold pharmaceutical companies and specialty pharmacies accountable if they work together to subvert the charitable donation process and violate the prohibition on the payment of kickbacks.”

    Under the Anti-Kickback Statute, a pharmaceutical company is prohibited from offering or paying, directly or indirectly, any remuneration—which includes money or any other thing of value— to induce Medicare patients to purchase the company’s drugs. This prohibition extends to the payment of patients’ copay obligations.
    Biogen sells Avonex and Tysabri, which are approved for treatment of multiple sclerosis. The government alleged that Biogen engaged in a prohibited kickback scheme by using two foundations, which claim 501(c)(3) status for tax purposes, as conduits to pay the copay obligations of Medicare patients to induce those patients to purchase Medicare-reimbursed Avonex and Tysabri prescriptions. As part of the scheme, Biogen identified for its vendor, Advanced Care Scripts (ACS), certain patients in Biogen’s Avonex or Tysabri free drug program. Biogen then worked with ACS to transfer these patients to the foundations, which received contemporaneous payments from Biogen and then covered the costs of Medicare copays for most or all of these patients. Medicare paid the remaining portion of the patients’ Avonex or Tysabri claims. The government alleged that Biogen engaged in this conduct in the first quarter of 2011 for certain Avonex patients, and in the second and third quarters of 2012 and 2013 for certain Tysabri patients.
    The allegations resolved by the settlement were originally raised in a case filed under the whistleblower, or qui tam, provision of the False Claims Act. The act permits private parties to sue for fraud on behalf of the United States and to share in any recovery. The act also permits the government to intervene in such actions, as the government did in this action. The whistleblower will receive approximately $3,960,000 of the settlement.
    In a separate settlement announced today, ACS has agreed to pay $1.4 million to resolve its role in the scheme.
    The investigation was conducted by the Civil Division’s Commercial Litigation Branch and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Massachusetts, in conjunction with the Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The lawsuit is captioned United States ex rel. Nee vs. Biogen et. al., Case No. 17-CV-10192-MLW (D. Mass.).