Justice Dept., Flayed by Judge, Abandons Fraud Case Against Nursing Home Operator
The U.S. Justice Department on Wednesday moved to abandon fraud allegations against HCR ManorCare Inc., a leading national provider of nursing homes, after a judge struck a key witness and scolded prosecutors for bringing a case she described as a "waste of money."
November 09, 2017 at 11:30 AM
4 minute read
U.S. Justice Department headquarters in Washington, D.C. Credit : Diego M. Radzinschi/ ALM Media
The U.S. Justice Department on Wednesday moved to abandon fraud allegations against HCR ManorCare Inc., a leading national provider of nursing homes, after a judge struck a key witness and scolded prosecutors for bringing a case she described as a “waste of money.”
The government rarely walks away from big-ticket disputes, and the move to drop the False Claims Act case in Virginia against ManorCare was sure to be seen as a blemish. ManorCare faced tens of millions of dollars in liability for alleged fraud in reimbursements for unnecessary therapy services.
The move followed a decision by a federal magistrate judge, Theresa Carroll Buchanan, to exclude the testimony of a government witness about billing records. Buchanan questioned the credibility of the witness, and the Justice Department's belated disclosure of handwritten notes. Buchanan said at a recent hearing that she was “appalled” by the government's conduct in the case against ManorCare.
“I don't think this case should have ever been brought,” Buchanan said at the hearing, according to a transcript.
The Justice Department was not immediately reached Thursday for comment about its move to end the case. ManorCare's lawyers at Reed Smith declined to comment. ManorCare's attorneys told the Justice Department they do not intend to seek fees or expenses from the government as part of the deal to end the case, according to court records.
The two sides said they'd update the court on Nov. 17 about the agreement. A summary judgment hearing in the case had been scheduled for Nov. 9. U.S. District Judge Claude Hilton in Alexandria on Thursday paused the litigation.
In April 2015, the Justice Department inserted itself into the whistleblower suit in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.
“The Department of Justice is committed to ensuring that health care providers who pressure their employees to provide medically unnecessary services to Medicare beneficiaries and Tricare recipients solely to increase their own profits are held accountable,” a DOJ lawyer said at the time.
The government has devoted increasing resources to pursue FCA cases, according to a report from Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher. The Justice Department last year said it recovered nearly $5 billion under the FCA.
The original whistleblower claims were filed in Alexandria federal court in 2009. Attorneys for two whistleblowers at the heart of the case were not immediately reached for comment Thursday.
Court filings Wednesday indicate the lawyers for the whistleblowers were displeased the government and ManorCare had reached a resolution ending the case. Jeffrey Downey, representing one of the whistleblowers, said he intends to request a hearing to argue the deal “is not fair, adequate or reasonable.”
“Allowing dismissal without such a hearing involving judicial review would render the approval provisions of the FCA meaningless,” Downey wrote in a court filing.
The Reed Smith team had pushed for the dismissal of the case or, alternatively, the exclusion of the chief government witness. “At this point it hardly matters if DOJ is dishonest or incompetent, or both,” ManorCare's lawyers wrote in a brief last month.
The Justice Department had urged Buchanan to let the government take certain steps to salvage the case, but the judge was not so inclined. She called the case a “huge waste of money” and a “house of cards” that rested on the testimony of an unreliable witness.
“I understand the Department of Justice's inclination to try to somehow repair this, but I don't think that this is reparable,” Buchanan said during the Oct. 27 hearing.
Read more:
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 AllPaul Weiss’ Shanmugam Joins 11th Circuit Fight Over False Claims Act’s Constitutionality
‘A Force of Nature’: Littler Mendelson Shareholder Michael Lotito Dies At 76
3 minute readUS Reviewer of Foreign Transactions Sees More Political, Policy Influence, Say Observers
'Unlawful Release'?: Judge Grants Preliminary Injunction in NASCAR Antitrust Lawsuit
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
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