We are providing FREE case review via phone for your safety and convenience during Covid-19 emergency.

Articles Tagged with whistleblower attorney in oakland

aidan-bartos-313782-copy-300x200Just like when filing any lawsuit, whistleblowers are often hesitant to file because they are concerned about attorney fees. Many people think filing a qui tam lawsuit is going to cost a lot of money, and that is enough to prevent them from doing it. This is particularly true when a whistleblower is unsure of the merits of the case. Fortunately, qui tam cases typically do not cost the whistleblower that much, if anything at all. Below are a few of the most common costs whistleblowers think they will face, and how these fees really work.

The Contingency Fee

When you meet with an attorney for the first time to review your case, that consultation will usually be free. This consultation is simply to determine if your case has merit. If it does not, you are not charged anything for that meeting. If it does, the attorney will likely take the case on a contingency fee basis. This means that when the case is over, the attorney will receive a percentage of the compensation you are awarded. You do not have to pay for anything out of pocket. While working your case, the attorney will pay for all expenses including reaching out to expert witnesses, traveling, and completing and filing documentation.

When someone identifies an act of health care fraud, it is important that they speak up. However, under the False Claims Act (FCA) the ways in which they speak up are limited by Federal law. A recent Supreme Court ruling on qui tam lawsuits arising under the FCA will have broad implications for whistleblowers.

The Background

According to the LII Supreme Court Bulletin, Benjamin Carter first filed a qui tam suit against Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc. (KBR) in 2006. His lawsuit alleged that KBR had fraudulently billed the United States government for water purification services that were either performed improperly or not performed at all. The District Court dismissed the complaint based on the first-to-file rule which states that when a private person brings a qui tam lawsuit under the FCA, no person can bring a related action based on the same underlying facts. In this case, Mr. Carter’s complaint was dismissed because there was a pending case with similar claims that had been filed earlier. While Mr. Carter appealed, the pending case was dismissed. Mr. Carter filed a new lawsuit, which was also dismissed for the same reason – the pending case was now pending on appeal.supreme court

Justia Lawyer Rating for Gregory J. Brod
Contact Information