Parker Waichman LLP

Two Recent Court Rulings Reject Previous Court’s Interpretation of ‘Public Disclosure Bar’ in Whistleblower Lawsuits

Two recent court decisions may make it easier for whistleblowers to pursue a qui tam lawsuit filed under the False Claims Act (FCA). The rulings focus on the “public disclosure bar”, a procedural hurdle that dismisses a whistleblower’s case if it is “based upon the public disclosure of allegations or transactions” in specific ways, including […]

Court Rulings Reject Court’s Interpretation

Court Rulings Reject Court’s Interpretation


Two recent court decisions may make it easier for whistleblowers to pursue a qui tam lawsuit filed under the False Claims Act (FCA). The rulings focus on the “public disclosure bar”, a procedural hurdle that dismisses a whistleblower’s case if it is “based upon the public disclosure of allegations or transactions” in specific ways, including a government “report, hearing, audit, or investigation,”; this does not apply if the whistleblower is the original source of that information.

In 1999, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled that the public disclosure bar was applicable if information given to a “competent government official” was “publicly disclosed.” This decision can be problematic for whistleblowers because it allows cases to be dismissed if information was disclosed to the government but never available to the general public.

Other federal appellate courts have rejected the Seventh Circuit’s interpretation. This recently occurred with two courts in the past month. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit considered a case that has been ongoing for 14 years and considered whether “public disclosures” include reports that have been distributed within the government but the general public. The case involves a employee of a county government program intended to help counties affected by storm damage. In 1995, the employee reported concerns about fraud to the USDA. An audit was issued at one of the counties the following year, and a report was issued substantiating the whistleblower’s claims. Other parts of her allegations were supported in another reporting following a 1997 investigation. Various state and federal government agencies received these reports, but they were never made available to the general public. The Fourth Circuit ruled that these reports do not count as “public disclosures”. The public disclose bar only applies when information is made to the public at large or to the public domain, the court ruled.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit made a similar decision a few weeks later. The case was filed against a defendant that operated in a hospital; the whistleblower alleged that the defendants overbilled for certain services, subsequently submitting false claims to federally-funded healthcare programs such as Medicare and Medicaid. It turns out that in late 2006, the government started auditing the defendant’s billing practices which led to an administrative settlement in late 2009. The whistleblower was unaware of this information, but his case was dismissed by the district court under the premise that the audit counted as “public disclosure” The Sixth Circuit overturned this decision, and ruled that since government is not “public”, information to the government does not by itself count as “public disclosure”.

What Our Clients Say About Us
We have worked with thousands of clients and we appreciate them and their positive reviews. Here are just a few recent client reviews...
5 Star Reviews 150
robert francis
3 years ago
5 Star Reviews 150
Positive: Responsiveness Top firm and ALWAYs in touch when you need a question answered. Very responsive.
Dean Stevens
3 years ago
5 Star Reviews 150
I want to start off with saying thank you to the entire firm for taking my case but I especially want to thank Benita Rollis. She kept me updated throughout this whole process that was completely new to me and always answered any concerns I had. Parker Waichman LLP you have a gem in Benita Rollis and I will definitely recommend your law firm. Thank you.
C Torres
3 years ago

Why Choose Us to Help You?

We Take Care of Everything
Your situation is stressful enough: Let us take on the deadlines, paperwork, investigation, and litigation. We'll handle every detail so you don't have to worry.
No Recovery = No Legal Fees
We work on a contingency-fee basis, meaning that we only get paid from a portion of your settlement or jury award. If you don't get compensation, you owe us nothing.
Decades of Experience
Your situation is stressful enough: Let us take on the deadlines, paperwork, investigation, and litigation. We'll handle every detail so you don't have to worry.
Respected by Our Peers
Judges, insurance adjusters, and fellow attorneys all speak highly of our skills, and we've earned numerous accolades, including a flawless rating from AVVO.
We Have Many Locations To Serve You
We have the experience and the skilled litigators to win your case. Contact us and speak with a real attorney who can help you.
Long Island – Nassau
Parker Waichman LLP
6 Harbor Park Drive
Port Washington, NY 11050
Long Island – Suffolk
Parker Waichman LLP
201 Old Country Road – Suite 145
Melville, NY 11747
New York
Parker Waichman LLP
59 Maiden Lane, 6th Floor
New York, NY 10038
Queens
Parker Waichman LLP
118-35 Queens Boulevard, Suite 400
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Brooklyn
Parker Waichman LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West
One Pierrepont Plaza, 12th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
New Jersey
Parker Waichman LLP
80 Main Street, Suite 265
West Orange, NJ 07052
Florida
Parker Waichman LLP
27299 Riverview Center Boulevard
Suite 108
Bonita Springs, FL 34134
Nationwide Service
Parker Waichman LLP
59 Maiden Lane, 6th Floor
New York, NY 10038