FALSE CLAIMS ACT ENFORCEMENT IN 2025

The DOJ has expressed and emphasized an aggressive approach by instituting the Department of Justice Corporate Whistleblower Awards Pilot Program and Justice AI in 2024. This is not limited to nursing home facilities or incentives for referrals, but rather the government is gearing towards prosecution of a much broader array of actors and conduct.

Since the Supreme Court ruling in Super Valu, the subjective standard for criminal intent (knowing) is likely to create more issues that are ripe for litigation for a jury as it will likely vary on decision making based on questions of fact.

The defense of attacking lack of evidence of intent will be a greater challenge in this landscape. Attorneys at Walk Free Law are well equipped to address these challenges with persuasive arguments  that are not limited to constitutional challenges consisting of government agencies acting outside the scope of its statutory authority.

Moreover, case law such as Loper Bright has demonstrated the need for immediate legal creativity to prevent bad precedent among Federal Qui Tam decisions which set the stage for FCA defenses, especially where circuit courts are split as to whether these types of actions are constitutional amidst conflicts of interest and facts involving self-appointment of relators (or whistleblowers). A relator in a qui tam action refers to a private individual who brings a lawsuit on behalf of the government against a party alleged to have defrauded the government. The relator is often a whistleblower who has insider knowledge of the fraudulent activity. If the lawsuit is successful, the relator may receive a portion of the recovery as a reward for their role in exposing the fraud. Government incentives in weaponizing future relators require an aggressive approach for all health care providers that are subject to healthcare fraud and abuse investigation via DOJ enforcement.

Schedule a consult with our attorneys to ensure your organization and actions are protected in the event of government investigations involving a whistleblower. It is better to take a prophylactic approach than to prepare for mitigation once  subpoenas are issued in support of a grand jury indictment.