The United States Supreme Court Upholds Whistleblower Protections

In the case that was heard before the U.S. Supreme Court (Lawson v. FMR, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 12-3),  the arguments made by FMR, LLC, the parent company of Fidelity Investments (Fidelity), that whistleblower protections should not extend to contractors working for the company, were ultimately rejected.  This case affirms the position that under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, whistleblower protection extends beyond direct employees.  In a 6-3 vote, the Supreme Court ruled that whistleblower protections apply to the subcontractors who do business with the publicly traded companies covered by the terms of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, including law firms, accounting firms, investment advisers, and other companies.

At issue in this case was the whistleblower protection provision in the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which was passed in 2002 as a means of reforming financial transactions.  The Act created a set of standards for management and public accounting firms, as well as publically traded company boards.  Attorneys arguing against the broad interpretation of the whistleblower protection provision stated that the ruling would expand the application of the protection from 5,000 companies to more than a million businesses, including small businesses.

This case arose out of the termination of the contract of a senior director of finance and another individual after they reported some improprieties with cost-accounting. Fidelity Investments has mutual funds that are public companies required to file reports with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).  However, the management of the funds is carried out through private companies that are under contract.  The whistleblowers in this case, Jackie Lawson and Jonathan Zang, worked for Fidelity Brokerage Services LLC. They brought a whistleblower retaliation case against Fidelity after they were terminated, allegedly as the result of reporting improper company practices.  Due to the fact that Fidelity uses a contractor model to operate its funds, there are no direct employees.  The dissenting judges stated that the decision was too broad, leading to the possibility of lawsuits brought by low-level employees who were terminated for other reasons after viewing a trivial offense.  These federal retaliation claims could be brought against small businesses, leading to many cases that would not have been brought otherwise.

The Supreme Court’s decision in this case was based on the fact that the Sarbanes-Oxley Act granted whistleblower protection to “any officer, employee, contractor, subcontractor, or agent.”  The Court ruled that it was not possible for Congress to have passed an act that did not offer protection to someone like Jackie Hosang Lawson and Jonathan Zang, the Fidelity contractor employees who brought the retaliation claim.  In writing the opinion for the Court, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg addressed the arguments that there would be a lot more retaliation claims by stating that there was little evidence that the floodgates would open.

When a person brings a retaliation claim against a former employer stating that the employment was terminated or the employee was demoted based, at least in part, on retaliation for reporting a financial impropriety.  The employee only needs to satisfy the “preponderance of the evidence” standard while the employer must show that the employee was terminated or demoted for legitimate reasons by clear and convincing evidence.  Under the interpretation of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the financial impropriety might be based on mail fraud or wire fraud.  Critics of the ruling claim that this imbalance will lead to inequity.

Whistleblower protections are necessary to provide a means of redress for employees who were terminated after reporting a problem within the business.  Although it is never easy to go through a lawsuit, the skilled and compassionate whistleblower and qui tam attorneys at Barrett Law PLLC will work with you to enforce your rights and hold the company accountable for your wrongful termination.  To discuss what happened to you, call us at (601) 790-1505.  Our attorneys only get paid if we succeed on your claim.

/by

Securities Exchange Commission Enters into Whistleblower Case against Siemens

There was a whistleblower retaliatory termination action filed against Siemens A.G.by Meng-Lin Liu, who was a Division Compliance Officer for Siemens China, which is a subsidiary of Siemens A.G.  Liu alleged that Siemens China was engaged in a kickback scheme to sell medical imaging equipment to public hospitals in China and North Korea through intermediaries who would send a portion of the proceeds to the officials who granted the contracts to Siemens China.  Liu made a number of attempts to change the company policies and reported the possibility of corruption to a number of different people within the company.  Over a period of time, Siemens China stripped responsibilities from Liu and eventually informed him that he should not report to work for the remainder of his employment contract and that the contract would not be renewed.

Liu brought a whistleblower retaliation action against Siemens A.G. under the provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act and its anti-retaliation provisions as related to reports of wrongdoing pursuant to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and other regulations under the umbrella of the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC).  Siemens argued that the whistleblower protections did not apply because Liu only reported the problems internally while an employee of Siemens China.  Liu only went to the SEC after he was terminated.  For a variety of reasons, including the fact that the whistleblower protections at issue did not extend to extraterritorial retaliation terminations, the complaint was dismissed with prejudice.  However, the court did not rule on the question of whether the Dodd-Frank protections extended to whistleblowers who reported company improprieties internally, but did not go to the SEC with the reports of wrongdoing.  The case is now back in the courts.

The SEC has been indicating for some time that it was going to begin to take action against companies that retaliated against employees who reported improprieties internally, but did not pursue an external report.  In the Siemens case, the SEC filed an amicus brief, known as a “friend of the court” filing, in which the SEC asserted that its interpretation of the provision in Dodd-Frank that protected against retaliation extended the protection to employees who only followed internal reporting protocols.

Although the SEC has been giving warnings that it intended to wade into this battle for some time, the filing of the amicus brief outlining its position on the application of the Dodd-Frank whistleblower protections to internal whistleblowers.  This position may provide additional security for employees who are considering reporting company wrongdoing.

The outcome of this court case can have serious repercussions on the development of internal policies.  If the court were to decide that Siemens’ assertions are correct, it could signal a new company policy where the company would be motivated to terminate an employee who reported improprieties as quickly as possible before he had a chance to go to the SEC and report the problems.

When an employee discovers that the company for which he works has done something wrong, he has a difficult decision to make.  If he reports the problem, he incurs the risk of losing his job.  Whistleblower protections are intended to ensure that an employee can do the right thing while being assured that he will not lose his livelihood.  If you are facing a retaliation termination, the knowledgeable and committed whistleblower and qui tam attorneys at Barrett Law PLLC will work with you to develop an effective legal strategy.  We will sit down with you during a free initial evaluation.  To schedule an appointment, please call us at (601) 790-1505.  We only receive a fee if we succeed in getting you a payment on your claim.

/by

New York Federal Court Judge Revives Hawker Beechcraft Corp. Whistleblower Case

A whistleblower case that was precluded by the ruling of a bankruptcy court judge has been given new life by a New York federal court judge.  In March 2012, Hawker Beechcraft filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.  When Hawker Beechcraft Corp. went through the bankruptcy process, it had a 2.3 billion dollar False Claims Act case pending against it.  The action was based upon allegations that the company had used defective parts in manufacturing planes that were subsequently sold to the U.S. government.

The bankruptcy judge ruled that the claims did not satisfy the stringent requirements for exemptions of some types of debts that prevented them from being written off in the reorganization plan.  However, the recent federal court ruling now gives the whistleblowers the chance to argue their case in bankruptcy court, even though a bankruptcy exit plan is in place, the company emerged from bankruptcy in 2013, and Hawker Beechcraft now has been sold to Textron Inc.

Two former employees of a subcontractor to Hawker Beechcraft, TECT Aerospace Inc., are going to be able to argue that they are entitled to recover on behalf of the government for defective plane parts in planes that were purchased by the U.S. government.  The False Claims Act provides private citizens with the right to bring actions based on wrongdoing done to the U.S. government.  In the matter of Hawker Beechcraft, the planes with defective parts were purchased by the U.S. Navy and Air Force, thereby involving fraudulent actions impacting government entities.  This case involves possible penalties up to 2.3 billion dollars.  When an action like this is brought, the private citizen who initiated the case gets a portion of the damages that ultimately are awarded.  This action proved to be very complicated because of the bankruptcy of Hawker Beechcraft.

After the Hawker Beechcraft bankruptcy was filed, the bankruptcy judge ruled that there was nothing about the False Claims Act action and the potential monetary award that justified it being exempt from the write off of debts in bankruptcy.  There are very few exceptions to this rule, which include student loans, child-support payments, and damages awards arising out of drunk driving injuries.  The bankruptcy judge determined that the claims did not fit within the narrow loophole.  The two claimants asserted that the dismissal of their whistleblower lawsuit was improper based on the fact that it was grounded in allegations of government contracting fraud.  A New York judge now has agreed with them and they will get a second chance at recovering for the fraudulent actions of Hawker Beechcraft.

The recent decision by Judge P. Kevin Castel grants whistleblowers the right to argue their claims in bankruptcy court.  However, it by no means guarantees them a recovery, merely gets them in the door.

Whistleblower laws are intended to encourage private citizens to hold companies accountable for wrongdoing while offering protection from retaliation.  However, there are times when the companies do retaliate against the employees for stepping up and doing the right thing.  If you have been terminated or demoted because you reported a problem, the experienced and hardworking attorneys at Barrett Law PLLC will develop a legal strategy based on the unique needs of your case.  To schedule a free initial consultation, call us at (601) 790-1505.  Our commitment to our clients means that we only get paid if we recover the compensation that you deserve.

/by

Well-known Tobacco Whistleblower, Merrell Williams, Jr., Recently Dies

Merrell Williams, Jr. died in Ocean Springs, Mississippi on November 18, 2013.  Williams was a controversial whistleblower who was one of the main reasons many of the dangerous or fraudulent actions of the big tobacco industry were brought to light, but the manner in which this came about was the subject of great debate.

Williams was a paralegal with a law firm in Louisville, Kentucky, Wyatt, Tarrant & Combs, which did a lot of legal work for Brown & Williamson Tobacco Company.  In 1994, Williams leaked a very large amount of documents that he previously had copied, which resulted in lawsuits that ultimately culminated in the tobacco industry paying billions of dollars into settlements and funds to cover the medical problems suffered by smokers.  The files that Williams leaked clearly demonstrated the tobacco industry’s awareness that the cigarettes did in fact cause cancer, that nicotine was addictive, and that there were marketing campaigns aimed at getting children hooked on cigarettes.

The controversy that surrounded the leaking of the tobacco companies records related to the fact that he was acting as a paralegal with Brown & Williamson as a client, and the tobacco company accused Williams of a breach of attorney-client privilege.  In addition, there was evidence that an anti-tobacco attorney who was bringing suits against the tobacco industry had paid for a house, a boat, two vehicles, and a job that paid $3,000 per month, but did not require any attendance at an office, for Williams.  Williams claimed that these were actually the result of loans that he was repaying.

 When Williams joined the Louisville law firm, he was one of a number of employees who was tasked with reviewing thousands of pages of documents in order to craft defenses to the many tobacco-related personal injury lawsuits that were being brought against tobacco companies.  Williams saw documents demonstrating that the tobacco companies had scientific research from their own scientists detailing the dangers of smoking.  The same year that he joined the firm, 1988, Williams began taking documents out of the firm hidden under his clothing.  He would copy them at different copy stores and then return the originals.  From 1990 to 1992, Williams tried to get law enforcement agencies or anti-tobacco groups interested in the documents he had taken.  After being laid off in 1992, he notified the law firm of his intention to bring litigation against the firm based on job stress-related illness, but the tobacco company of Brown & Williamson sued him first on the basis of theft and breach of contract.  Williams defended his removal of the documents on the basis that they revealed criminal activity.

An attorney in Florida eventually became interested in the documents in 1994.  This attorney was the one who provided the house and other high-value items to Williams.  Although the admissibility of the documents was debated, they ended up in court cases and in public hands.  The case against the tobacco industry was significantly bolstered when Jeffrey Wigand, who had been an executive with Brown & Williamson, went public with company secrets in 1996.  The tobacco settlement in 1998 resulted in the top four tobacco companies agreeing to cover tobacco-related medical bills for 46 states over 25 years.

Regardless of the controversy that surrounds his disclosure of documents, Merrell Williams, Jr. was a whistleblower whose actions contributed significantly to the tobacco companies being held responsible for their wrongdoing.

Barrett Law PLLC Advocates on Behalf of Whistleblowers

The decision to take action to expose injustices despite possible repercussions is a very brave one that deserves the best possible legal support.  The hard-working Mississippi Qui Tam/Whistleblower Attorneys at Barrett Law PLLC will provide an honest evaluation of your case in a confidential initial consultation, without charge, and develop a legal strategy that meets your unique circumstances.  To schedule an appointment, call us at (601) 790-1505.  We only receive legal fees if we recover for you.

/by

Whistleblower in JPMorgan Chase Fraud Case to Be Paid $63.9 Million

Under the False Claims Act, those people who learn about the efforts of businesses to defraud the federal government through fraudulent practices or the submission of false documents may receive a portion of any payments that the government is able to recover from the wrongdoer.  This percentage may range up to thirty percent (30%) of the total recovery.

In the matter of JP Morgan Chase & Co. (JPMorgan), according to news reports, the company admitted that it used fraudulent or deceptive practices in order to entice the federal government to insure home loans that were not financially sound.  JPMorgan entered into a settlement with the government and whistleblower in which it acknowledged that for more than ten years it had submitted loans to be insured by the Federal Housing Administration or the Department of Veteran Affairs that did not meet the requirements to qualify them for federal guarantees.  The financial settlement mandates that JPMorgan pay 614 million dollars back to the government and take affirmative steps to provide more oversight over the loan process.

The information that triggered the investigation into JP Morgan was provided by Keith Edwards, who brought a False Claims Act case against JPMorgan.  Edwards had worked for JPMorgan or one of its predecessors from 2003 to 2008 and had the  position of an assistant vice president dealing with government insurance.  After Edwards initiated the suit, the federal government joined the action as a plaintiff.  On Friday, March 7, 2014, the amount of payment was revealed in a court filing in the United States District Court in Manhattan, which marked the conclusion of the legal case against JPMorgan.

Part of the case against JPMorgan included allegations that the company’s internal review process had turned up the problem with the loans, but that it did not disclose these issues.  As a result of these unqualified loans being insured by the government, there were millions of dollars in payouts when homeowners that could not meet the terms of their mortgages defaulted, resulting in foreclosures across the country.

The payment that the whistleblower is going to receive includes approximately 56.5 million dollars resulting from payments made to the government to reimburse insurance payments that were made by the Federal Housing Administration and another 7.4 million dollars resulting from reimbursement to the Department of Veteran Affairs.  Mr. Edwards brought the legal action under the False Claims Act, initiating the case in January 2013.  The case was brought under the provisions that permit United States citizens to bring action against government contractors whose actions have defrauded the government.

This whistleblower payment is one of a number of very large payments made by the government as a result of the financial crisis that hit the mortgage industry in 2008.  The Justice Department stated at the end of 2013 that it had paid out nearly 2 billion dollars in whistleblower awards from 2009 through 2013, although not all of these related to mortgage lenders.

Barrett Law PLLC Represents Whistleblowers Who Expose Fraudulent Practices

The False Claims Act allows ordinary citizens to make a real difference in exposing corporate wrongdoing.  When a person decides to take action, it is important to have knowledgeable and committed attorneys who will work with the individual in putting together a complicated case.  At Barrett Law PLLC, our team of Mississippi Whistleblower Attorneys have the experience and dedication to ensure that those who are willing to come forward have the support that they need to succeed in holding wrongdoers accountable.  To discuss your case in a confidential initial consultation, call us at (601) 790-1505.  We do not recover any fees unless we succeed on your behalf.

/by

U.S. Government Files a False Claims Lawsuit Against Sprint

The United States Government enacted the False Claims Act as an incentive to people that had inside information of wrongdoing to provide those details to investigative bodies.  The act has led to legal action being brought against many commercial enterprises, large and small.  One of the most recent cases filed under the False Claims Act involved telecommunications giant Sprint Corp. and involves allegations that Sprint charged the United States government 21 million dollars more than it should have when complying with court-mandated wiretaps and other operations to assist the government in ongoing investigations.  Attorneys for Sprint have stated that the telecommunications company intends to vigorously defend against these charges.

The government frequently will seek the assistance of telecommunication firms when carrying out investigations through the use of phone surveillance.  In order to be able to assist in these requests, telecommunication firms are required to maintain the proper infrastructure.  As part of this readiness,  the firms may seek reimbursement for expenses that are reasonably related to the staff, equipment, and facilities that must be maintained to meet the wiretap and monitoring needs of the requesting government entities.

The current litigation arises out of a case brought by the Justice Department in which it alleges that Sprint inflated its expenses by as much as fifty-eight percent (58%), submitting bills that did not properly enumerate the basis for the reimbursement requests.  These expenses were related to operations by the United States Drug Enforcement Administration, the U.S. Marshals Service, and other agencies from January, 2007 through July, 2010.  The court action alleges that Sprint improperly sought and received funds from the government to pay for upgrades to its facilities and equipment, which are not recoverable expenses, according to news reports.

Through its attorneys and court filings, Sprint maintains that it only sought reimbursement for allowable expenses that it reasonably incurred during the process of assisting government entities with surveillance operations.

The United States government relies on the False Claims Act as the primary mechanism for getting money back that allegedly was paid as the result of a fraud committed by a corporation.  A claim brought under the False Claims Act may include:

  • The improper presentation, with knowledge of the wrongdoing, of a claim for payment to the federal government that is based on fraud;
  • Utilizing a false or fraudulent record to get a claim approved and paid by the government;
  • Engaging in a conspiracy to defraud the government through the submission of and payment on false or fraudulent claims;
  • Submitting to the government a certification about property used by the government when that property may not have been used or the person making the certification does not have actual knowledge that the request for payment is accurate;
  • Purchasing or taking possession of an obligation from the government when the business entity is not legally able to take the respective action; or
  • Acting with knowledge to avoid or conceal an obligation to pay money or otherwise transmit property to the government through the use of false records or statements.

When a whistleblower brings fraud to the attention of the federal government under the provisions of the False Claims Act, he may be entitled to an award of fifteen to thirty percent (15-30%) of the government’s recovery from the wrongdoer.

When a person steps forward to revel wrongdoing in the part of a company, it is imperative for him to be protected.  If you were acting as a whistleblower as part of a protected activity, the company knew that you were acting as a whistleblower, and you suffered harm as the result of retaliatory actions by the company, the knowledgeable and experienced Mississippi Qui Tam/Whistleblower Attorneys at Barrett Law PLLC will fight to get you the justice that you deserve.  Call us at (601) 790-1505 to discuss your legal rights during a free and confidential consultation.  There are no fees until we recover for you.

/by

Edward Snowden Calls for Reform of Whistleblower Laws

Edward Snowden, the now notorious former National Security Agency contractor who exposed classified documents to several media outlets, has recently called for more extensive whistleblower protections to protect concerned contractors and employees.  In a live chat transmitted on FreeSnowden.is, Snowden stated that legal channels for raising concerns were not available to him. Had he revealed the NSA programs he deems unconstitutional but classified to Congress, he states he would have been charged with a felony.  Snowden justified his action of approaching news outlets as the only viable choice under current whistleblower laws.

Snowden went on to explain that while NSA employees have access to whistleblowing channels, contractors, such as himself, do not.  Further, Snowden said the current laws do not provide real protections for anyone.  He said that had there been a real process in place where reports of wrongdoing were reviewed by independent arbiters, he would not have had to make the sacrifices he has to expose the facts he deemed necessary to the American public.

Snowden states that due to gaps in the federal whistleblower laws, he cannot return to the U.S. as he would be unprotected.  Snowden, who fled to Hong Kong and then Russia, acknowledges that returning to the U.S. would be the best resolution for the government, public and himself.  However, because Snowden is among a group of contractors exempt from current whistleblower laws, he feels a return is not possible.  Snowden believes he would not receive a fair trial absent adequate whistleblower protections.

The saga of Edward Snowden has cast new light on federal and state whistleblower laws.  Much of the controversy stems from an important initial question, is Edward Snowden a whistleblower?  Under the Whistleblower Protection Act, any disclosure made by a covered employee who reasonably believes there has been a violation of any rule, regulation, or law, or gross waste of funds, mismanagement, abuse of authority, or a substantial danger to public health and safety, is protected.  Since Snowden’s leak of documents, numerous lawsuits have been filed challenging the legality of the surveillance programs Snowden believed to be unconstitutional.

However, just because the leaked information served the public interest by exposing potential government illegality does not mean Snowden is protected under the law.  Traditionally, the intelligence community has been exempted from the Whistleblower Protection Act.  In 1998, Congress passed the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act.  The Act established a procedure for internal reporting within the agencies and through the Inspector General, but has been widely criticized as being ineffectual.  The Act provided no remedy for reprisals and merely identified the whistleblowers, leaving them vulnerable to retaliation.

Under current whistleblower acts, Snowden would not be considered a whistleblower.   For one, the information he disclosed arguably does not meet the criteria.  The surveillance programs he revealed are presumed to be constitutional, and not illegal, given the assent of Congress and the intelligence community.  However, even presuming what Snowden exposed was illegal, he meets a second problem under the law’s definition.  The Whistleblower Act protects public disclosures only if such disclosure is not prohibited by law.  As the information was classified and its disclosure a felony, Snowden would only have been protected had he brought his concerns to the NSA’s inspector general or to a member of the congressional intelligence committee.  Even further, under the current law, it is not clear that intelligence contractors are even protected.

The case of Edward Snowden will likely continue to have an impact on whistleblower laws and cases for years to come. At Barrett Law PLLC, we view the role of whistleblowers as vital to our community.  In Mississippi, whistleblowers are protected from retaliation when they step forward with important disclosures of law violations and may be entitled to compensation.  If you have potential information concerning a violation in your workplace, call us today at 1 (601) 790-1505 to schedule a free initial consultation.

/by

Mississippi Whistleblower Attorneys Examine The Top 7 Whistleblowers of All Time

Whistleblowers are often figures of much controversy.  Some whistleblowers are viewed as selfless martyrs; individuals who risk their careers and sometimes even lives to expose what they deem are illegalities occurring in an organization.  Others are considered to be traitors or defectors, electing to blow the whistle for personal gain.  Still more question the potential financial motivation of whistleblowers in qui tam cases.  Given the widely varying public attitudes towards whistleblowers, some famous whistleblowers are held in coveted esteem while others have achieved a state of notoriety.

The following is a list of the seven most well-known whistleblowers of all time.  These whistleblowers all share two common traits—they risked their jobs to reveal truths and became famous for it.  Aside from these shared factors, the outcome of their whistleblowing varies widely, with some ending up in prison and exile while others were immortalized by Hollywood.

  1. Daniel Ellsberg – responsible for the leak of The Pentagon Papers, Ellsberg is one of the original large scale whistleblowers.  Ellsberg leaked over 7,000 that documents to the New York Times that demonstrated how three presidential administrations and the military lied about the Vietnam War.  Ellsberg faced a life sentence for violating the Espionage Act, but avoided prison time after the judge declared a mistrial due to the Nixon administration’s actions in bugging his psychiatrist’s office.
  2. Peter Buxton – Buxton was an epidemiologist working for the U.S. Public Health Service.  He uncovered what is now known as the Tuskegee Experiment, wherein the USPHS deliberately withheld treatment to hundreds of African American men infected with syphilis so that they could study its effects.  His vital information led to cessation of the program and payouts of over $10 million to victims’ families.
  3. Jeffrey Wigand – this brave whistleblower worked for tobacco company Brown & Williamson.  With his biochemistry Ph.d. Wigand uncovered the tobacco company’s manipulation of nicotine levels and false information concerning its addictive properties.  Wigand was the subject of the movie “The Insider.”
  4. Bradley Manning—army intelligence analyst Bradley Manning downloaded more than 250,000 classified State Department documents, pictures, and videos, and provided them to whistleblower website WikiLeaks.  The information provided a disturbing look at some military actions.  Manning pled guilty to 10 of 22 counts of violating military orders and will serve many years in prison.
  5. Edward Snowden – currently the most well known whistleblower, Snowden leaks documents that revealed the National Security Agency is collecting phone records for millions of Americans and internet companies offer the NSA access to their servers.  Wanted for numerous felony charges, Snowden fled the country and has currently been granted asylum in Russia.
  6. Mark Whitacre – Whitacre rose to fame when he became involved in a lysine price fixing scheme taking place at Archer Daniel Midland in the 1990s.  Whitacre served as a mole for the FBI, collecting evidence that resulted in the conviction of three ADM executives.  Whitacre was later himself convicted for embezzlement and tax fraud, and served a sentence longer than that of the ADM executives.  His story was the basis for the movie “The Informant,” in which he was played by Matt Damon.
  7. Mark Felt – better known as “Deep Throat,” Felt shared insider information concerning the Watergate scandal with reporters and in turn helped to bring down President Nixon.  Felt was later convicted for his actions as an FBI agent, which he readily admitted to publically.  President Reagan pardoned Felt in 1981.  Felt kept his identity as “Deep Throat” secret for years and continued to deny that he was in fact the informant up until 2005.

At Barrett Law PLLC, we understand the role of a whistleblower is not an easy one.  For decades, we have helped to ensure brave whistleblowers receive the protections to which they are entitled and monetary compensation for their efforts.  For more information on qui tam/whistleblower cases, call us today at 1 (601) 790-1505 to schedule a free initial consultation.

/by

Whistleblowers Speak Out Against Alleged Wrongdoing at Veterans Hospital

Over the past few years, an alarming number of whistleblowers have filed disturbing complaints concerning the G.V. (Sonny) Montgomery Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Medical Center, located in Jackson, Mississippi.  The allegations raise serious questions about the hospital’s management practices and ability to care for veterans.  Due to the high number of complaints, their serious nature, and their likelihood of truth, congressional hearings are being held on the matter.

The problems brewing within the VA hospital were first brought to light in 2009 thanks to a whistleblower employee.   The Office of Special Counsel, in a letter sent to the Whitehouse last year, said that the initial 2009 report by a whistleblower alleged that the staff failed to properly sterilize and clean medical equipment that is routinely reused, such as scalpels and bone cutters.  The VA investigated the case and substantiated many of the allegations concerning a lack of adequate cleaning and sanitizing.  It vowed to take steps to correct the problem.

Less than two years later, however, a whistleblower employee named Gloria Kelley, who chose to identify herself, claimed the problems at the VA persisted.  Ms. Kelley worked in the Sterile Processing Department and stated that the incorrect procedures placed both employees and patients at risk.  Though her complaint was referred to the VA for investigation, they did not interview her.  The VA stated that it did not substantiate the allegations, but the Office of Special Counsel felt that the VA’s conclusion was unreasonable.

Since that time, many more whistleblowers, comprised of a diverse group of at least seven former and past employees, have made a variety of allegations concerning patient care. This past November, a congressional hearing was held wherein two whistleblowers described a shocking culture of negligence within the hospital system.

The hearing was held by the House Veterans Affairs’ Subcommittee on Oversight & Investigations.  Two whistleblowers provided key testimony: Dr. Phyllis Hollenbeck, M.D., a former physician of family medicine at the facility, and Dr. Charles Sherwood, M.D., the former chief of ophthalmology at the VA hospital.  Both doctors had complained to the Office of Special Counsel concerning misdiagnoses, poor sterilization, understaffing, and other management practices that jeopardized patient safety.

Dr. Hollenbeck said that a high number of unsupervised nurse practitioners outnumbered the doctors by a ratio of three to one.  The lax attitude allowed these nurse practitioners to prescribe narcotics without physician oversight and absent the required Drug Enforcement Administration registration numbers.  This practice was in violation of numerous federal and state laws as well as the VA’s own regulations.  Hollenbeck said that veterans were frequently misdiagnosed due to the shortage of physicians and the frequency with which nurse practitioners did the job, causing them to suffer needlessly and, at times, die.

Dr. Sherwood, who worked at the VA for thirty one years, felt the VA’s performance based model for senior executive services has led to an emphasis on pay and job security, which comes at the expense of the safety of patients.  The performance based model has recently been scrutinized by congress.

Other evidence of a culture of neglect emerged during the hearing.  One poignant story concerned a patient who was also a VA employee.  This patient never saw a physician for over two years, despite repeated requests.  He was seen solely by nurse practitioners.  It took a cancer diagnosis and removal of his entire stomach to finally see a doctor, and then the doctor refused to provide him with leave from work, resulting in his termination from the VA.

The VA hospital has refused to comment on specific cases but has stated that it is reviewing the findings of the Office of Special Counsel and remains dedicated to its mission of providing high quality care to veterans.

Since 1936, Barrett Law PLLC has protected Mississippi’s brave whistleblowers in their quest to stop illegal and unethical behaviors. Under Whistleblower Protection Act, whistleblowers are protected from retaliation and can be rewarded for shedding light on unlawful practices.  To stop workplace injustice, call us today at 1 (601) 790-1505 to schedule a free initial consultation.

/by

Former University of Kansas Lab Director, Professor File Separate Whistleblower Lawsuits

On November 2013, David S. Moore brought a lawsuit against his former employer, University of Kansas, alleging that it had retaliated against him for voicing his complaints about the University’s use of grant funds.  Moore was a laboratory director at the Microscopy and Analytical Imaging Laboratory in Lawrence, Kansas.  He was terminated by the University in October 2013.  Moore’s lawsuit was brought under the Kansas Whistleblower Act.

The Kansas Whistleblower Act bars supervisors and appointing authorities from prohibiting state employees from discussing operations of a state agency or other matters of public concern.  The Kansas Whistleblower Act also bars supervisors and appointing authorities from prohibiting state employees from reporting violations of federal or state law or requiring employees provide notice before making any such report.  The Kansas Whistleblower Act provides for review of a disciplinary actions by the Civil Service Board for employees classified as permanent under the Kansas Civil Service Act, which may subsequently appealed for judicial review.  Employees who are unclassified under the Kansas Civil Service Act have an immediate right to judicial review of disciplinary actions.  The Kansas Whistleblower Act defines disciplinary actions to include termination, demotion, transfer, transfer, reassignment, suspension or reprimand.

Moore’s lawsuit comes just weeks after another, though current, employee of the University filed a similar lawsuit.  Curtis Klaassen filed suit on October 31, 2013, alleging that he was placed on administrative leave from his position at the University for complaining about the misuse of federal grant funds by the University.  The Complaint filed by Klaassen also alleges that the University fired many of his post-graduate research assistants and killed genetically-modified mice that Klaassen used for research.  Klaassen has been at the University since 1968.  He is a professor at the University’s School of Medicine in its Department of Pharmacology, Toxicology, and Therapeutics.  The lawsuit names the University of Kansas, the University of Kansas School Medicine, the University’s Board of Regents, and several officials at the University as defendants.  Klaassen’s lawsuit was brought pursuant to a federal civil rights statute, 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 lawsuits involve deprivation by a state of an individual’s rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the United States Constitution.  Therefore, it is available to state employees.  It is not available to federal employees.  Section 1983 was a post-Civil War piece of legislation that was intended to provide a basis for redress by former slaves against states that refused to relinquish Jim Crow laws.  Use of Section 1983 went relatively inactive for a long period of time.  Its use was revived in the 1970s as a basis for whistleblower complaints.  It is also often frequently used for tort-related lawsuits, including wrongful arrest claims, and prisoner’s rights lawsuits.

University spokesmen denied the allegations contained in both the Moore Complaint and the Klaassen Complaint, claiming that both of the Complaints are baseless.

If you are a federal, state, or private employee and find yourself in a situation in which you have voiced or believe you need to voice complaints about practices by your employer and are facing retaliation or have concerns about potential retaliation, Barrett Law PLLC can help.  Our seasoned attorneys will provide you with legal guidance as to your rights and the protections to which you may be entitled.  We have a long history of protecting the rights of whistleblowers, whether federal, state, or private employees.  Contact us today at (601) 790-1505 to schedule your free and completely confidential initial consultation.

/by