When a person notices that someone else or another entity is defrauding the government through a Medicare scheme or another type of healthcare fraud, that person may often consider blowing the whistle and filing a qui tam lawsuit. These individuals are important because they help make things right and do not only help the government, but also all taxpayers in the country. If you have noticed wrongdoing and want to file a qui tam claim, below are six important facts you should know.
You Need to Act Fast
Many whistleblowers sit on the fact that they saw wrongdoing for a long time. It is important that you do not. In the False Claims Act, there is a rule known as first-to-file. This means that the first person that files the lawsuit will act as the relator and no other claims can be filed. If someone else notices the same wrongdoing and files a claim first, you are barred from receiving compensation for blowing the whistle.
Healthcare Fraud Lawyer Blog


When handled correctly, whistleblower cases can prevent fraud from occurring against the government, help make things right, and even compensate the whistleblower. However, too often these cases fall apart simply because mistakes are made during the process. This is largely because state and federal whistleblower laws are complicated. If you do not understand the laws, it is easy to not follow them correctly and this can lead to mistakes in your whistleblower claim. Below are the most common mistakes made in these cases, so you can avoid making the same ones in yours.
Individuals who believe they have observed someone else defrauding the government often wonder if they have a valid claim. The answer to that is a difficult one, and no one can really determine if a claim is valid without fully analyzing the facts of the case. However, if you believe that you have witnessed someone at your work or elsewhere defrauding the government, below are a few guidelines you can follow to determine if you have a case. Of course, a San Francisco qui tam lawyer can always provide the best advice on whether you have a valid claim.
If you believe you have witnessed someone defrauding the government, there is a chance you have a valid whistleblower claim. Coming forward about the wrongdoing is important. Not only will you serve the country by making things right, but you could also receive compensation if your claim is successful. However, these claims are some of the most challenging lawsuits to pursue. To give your claim the best chance of a positive outcome, it is important to speak to a San Francisco whistleblower lawyer. Choosing that lawyer is also essential, as you want to ensure that you work with someone who has the necessary experience and skills. Below are a few ways you can ensure you are working with the right attorney for your claim.
It was earlier this month when House Intelligence Committee Chair Adam Schiff issued a public statement saying that a subpoena was issued to Acting Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Joseph Maguire. The reason for the subpoena was that Maguire allegedly refused to release a whistleblower complaint.
Qui tam lawsuits are brought by individuals, known as whistleblowers, against a company that defrauded the United States government. Whistleblowers do receive compensation for alerting the government of the fraud, but this is not the motivation behind most qui tam lawsuits. Whistleblowers feel a moral obligation to report the company and set things right. There are a number of ways they do this, and many different types of qui tam lawsuits. The most common are found below.
The partial shutdown of the federal government has been going on for almost five weeks as of the date of this article. Many government programs have been negatively impacted. This is especially pertinent regarding whistleblower (also known as
Recently, the Supreme Court requested that the Department of Justice (DOJ) file a brief regarding a qui tam or whistleblower lawsuit brought under the False Claims Act (FCA) as regards a clarification of what, in fact, constitutes a “material” misrepresentation under the law. The response from the DOJ is controversial, to say the least.