Whistleblower Gets Nearly $34M in Duke University Fake Research Case
A former Duke University lab employee will receive nearly $34 million after the school Monday settled his False Claims Act lawsuit for $112.5 million alleging that another lab technician faked research data to obtain funding from federal agencies.
March 25, 2019 at 06:13 PM
5 minute read
Whistleblower Joseph Thomas, a former Duke University lab employee, will receive nearly $34 million after Duke on Monday settled his False Claims Act lawsuit alleging that another lab technician faked research data to obtain funding from federal agencies.
Thomas was aided by his brother, John Thomas Jr., a Virginia whistleblower lawyer whose law firm at the time, Gentry Locke Rakes & Moore, brought the suit. The lawyer, currently with Virginia firm Healy Hafemann Magee & Thomas, remained on board and was joined by Brooks, Pierce, McLendon, Humphrey & Leonard in North Carolina.
Duke announced Monday it was enacting major compliance reforms and will pay $112.5 million in penalties and reimbursement to the federal government to settle the suit. The False Claims Act permits private individuals to sue on behalf of the government and share in any recovery.
The Department of Justice said the Duke lab technician manipulated or falsified research on federal grants to the National Institutes of Health and to the Environmental Protection Agency for seven years starting in 2006. In some cases, court documents said, entire experiments were not performed while data results for them were made up. None of the research directly involved human subjects.
President Vincent Price said in Duke's statement, “We expect Duke researchers to adhere always to the highest standards of integrity, and virtually all of them do that with great dedication. When individuals fail to uphold those standards, and those who are aware of possible wrongdoing fail to report it, as happened in this case, we must accept responsibility, acknowledge that our processes for identifying and preventing misconduct did not work, and take steps to improve.”
Duke, a private university in Durham, North Carolina, is a prestigious research school in the state's so-called Research Triangle. It receives millions of dollars in funding from federal agencies for hundreds of grants each year, the DOJ said.
In its announcement, Duke said it discovered the possible research misconduct in 2013 during an internal investigation after the technician was fired for embezzling money from the university over the same period. The lawsuit accused Duke of not sharing information about research misconduct with the government.
The school denied in court that it was trying to cover up the research fraud, saying it was still working to understand the extent of the misconduct.
Duke general counsel Pamela Bernard referred questions to Michael Schoenfeld, the school's vice president for government affairs and public relations, who was not available for comment. Duke was represented in the suit by Carol Poindexter, a partner at Norton Rose Fulbright in Washington, D.C. She also was not available for comment Monday.
Duke said it was implementing key efforts to improve the quality and integrity of research conducted on campus, including:
- The appointment of a new advisory panel on research integrity and excellence. The panel will recommend ways to improve research administration, with a focus on promoting research integrity, by June 30.
- The establishment of a new, integrated leadership structure for research to provide clear and consistent policy guidance, oversight and accountability for all research at Duke University and the Duke University Health System.
- A new initiative to promote values and a culture of excellence and accountability at Duke.
In a letter to the campus community Monday, Price and three other Duke leaders wrote, “This is a difficult moment for Duke. This case demonstrates the devastating impact of research fraud and reinforces the need for all of us to have a focused commitment on promoting research integrity and accountability.”
The letter outlined past and future compliance reforms, and then said, “We expect everyone at Duke to adhere to the highest standards of ethical behavior. This includes the responsibility to act with integrity and to report conduct that does not meet these standards. In this case and others, we have seen first-hand that the actions of those who do not can harm the entire institution.”
In the DOJ's statement, Matthew Martin, U.S. attorney for the Middle District of North Carolina, where the suit was filed, said, “Taxpayers expect and deserve that federal grant dollars will be used efficiently and honestly. May this serve as a lesson that the use of false or fabricated data in grant applications or reports is completely unacceptable.”
It was the second False Claims Act settlement with a college since March 21. Last week the University of Wisconsin agreed to pay $1.5 million to settle allegations that it failed to properly account for rebates and credits to reduce costs allocable to federal grants and awards it had received. The university did not admit to the allegations.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'Everything From A to Z': University GCs Tested by Legal, Financial, Societal Challenges
6 minute readFormer Rutgers Law School Dean Replaces Hoffman as University General Counsel on Interim Basis
4 minute readAs Student Workers Unionize in Droves, NLRB Tries to Prevent Colleges' Privacy Concerns From Slowing Momentum
5 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250