The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania recently endorsed a significant expansion to the Government’s ability to dismiss a qui tam relator’s False Claims Act (FCA) case.
Rosemary Welsh, of counsel in the Vorys Cincinnati office, authored an article titled, “Ohio Implements Standard Authorization Form for Medical Records” for the May-June edition of the Cincinnati Bar Report.
As expected, the Supreme Court has just resolved a circuit split over the statute of limitations for non-intervened False Claims Act cases by maximizing the time a relator has to file a complaint. The decision in Cochise Consultancy, Inc. v. United States ex rel. Hunt, No. 18-315 (May 13, 2019) will greatly expand a defendant’s time frame for potential FCA liability and lead to more cases involving faded recollections, costly document recovery, and potential damages for decades-old alleged fraud.
On April 30, 2019, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) published a notification of enforcement discretion in the Federal Register revising the maximum annual penalty amounts for breaches under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA).
Last month, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois confronted a bank’s potential liability for false information obtained (and even allegedly encouraged) by bank employees in the processing of consumer loans.
Jay Kelly, a partner in the Vorys Cincinnati office, authored an article titled, “To Compete or Non-Compete: Legal Developments Related to Non-Compete Agreements that could Impact the Restrictive Covenants in 3PL Employment Agreements” for 3PL Perspectives April 2019 edition.
In a recent decision, the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota held that the Department of Justice (DOJ) can still dismiss a qui tam filed under the False Claims Act even after it has declined to intervene in the case.
The U.S. Supreme Court has vacated the Ninth Circuit’s decision approving a settlement between Google and a class of its users, based on unresolved questions regarding the users’ standing to bring their federal privacy claim.
On November 21, 2018, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued a far-reaching decision that “an employer has a legal duty to exercise reasonable care to safeguard its employees’ sensitive personal information stored by the employer on an internet-accessible computer system.”
Gone are the days of going on vacation to get away. As technology continues to advance, society has not only become increasingly dependent on the ability to remotely handle routine tasks, but also on the capability to deal with more complicated tasks such as reviewing and signing involved legal documents.
Yesterday, California enacted the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018. The law imposes new regulations on the collection, use, and disclosure of consumers’ personal information that will significantly impact companies doing business in California.
Although the government has always had the authority to move to dismiss relator cases, it almost never does, to the great frustration of numerous defendants that have had to incur the costs and inconvenience of meritless False Claims Act (FCA) claims.