- Georgetown University Law Center, J.D., 2009, cum laude
Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics, Senior Notes Editor
- Muskingum College, B.A., 2006
Bar & Court Admissions
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
- U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio
- U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio
- U.S. Supreme Court
- Admitted to practice law only in the states listed above.
- Chief Justice Thomas J. Moyer, Supreme Court of Ohio
Dan is a partner in the Vorys Columbus office and a member of the litigation group. He is experienced in appellate, eminent domain, real property, commercial, oil and gas, and False Claims Act litigation.
His notable experience includes:
- Successfully presenting oral argument in Ohio appellate courts
- Drafting dozens of party and amicus briefs in Federal and Ohio appellate courts
- Litigating original actions and certified questions of state law in the Supreme Court of Ohio
- Protecting clients’ property rights and maximizing compensation in eminent domain actions against the State of Ohio and property disputes arising from rails-to-trails projects
- Obtaining writ of prohibition from Supreme Court of Ohio preventing the Ohio Oil and Gas Commission from exercising jurisdiction over the issuance of oil and gas permits
- Obtaining permanent injunction at trial on behalf of a city contractor regarding the award of a city contract
- Obtaining dismissal of a retaliation case brought by former professors against a university client under § 1983, the False Claims Act, and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
- Obtaining dismissals of defamation, invasion of privacy, and related claims filed against national journalists and media organizations
- Negotiating a favorable settlement on behalf of a major defense contractor in a case where the Department of Justice brought multiple claims under RCRA and the False Claims Act
Dan received his J.D. cum laude from Georgetown University Law Center where he was the senior notes editor for the Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics and represented clients as part of Georgetown’s Appellate Litigation Clinic. He received his B.A. summa cum laude from Muskingum College.
Dan served as a judicial law clerk for Chief Justice Thomas J. Moyer of the Supreme Court of Ohio.
Professional and Community Activities
- President of the Board of Trustees for the Ohioana Library Association
- Ohio Farm Bureau Federation, Member
- Ohio State Bar Association Agricultural Law Committee, Member
- Alumni Interviewer for Georgetown University Law School
- 2006 Southern Political Science Association Conference, “Innovation or More of the Same: The Pre-Primary Campaign Fundraising Characteristics of Insider and Outsider Candidates in the 2004 Presidential Election”
- 1/1/2018Vorys is pleased to announce that Kelly Bissinger, Joseph Brunner, Laura Geyer, David Hine, Jacinto Núñez, Daniel Shuey and Keith Zabela became partners on January 1, 2018.
- 4/4/2013The Appellate Strategies and Perspectives CLE series was created to provide attorneys interested in appellate law with practical tips and tools, an analysis of emerging trends and issues in the field, and ajudicialviewpoint on the practice. The series, which was co-sponsored by Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP and The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law, included three sessions in 2013, each following a similar format.
- 11/6/2019On October 31, 2019, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) published in the Federal Register an interim final rule which – as required by last December’s Agricultural Improvement Act of 2018 (popularly known as the “2018 Farm Bill”)
- 3/7/2019Client Alert: Sixth Circuit Holds in Nicole Gas that Baker Botts Does Not Apply to Contempt SanctionsThe Sixth Circuit recently held that Baker Botts, L.L.P. v. ASARCO, L.L.C., 135 S. Ct. 2158 (2015) does not apply to contempt sanctions.
- 2/6/2019Oil and Gas Alert: Sixth Circuit Affirms Constitutionality of Ohio’s Statutory Unitization ProceduresOn February 4, 2019, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court decision upholding the constitutionality of Ohio’s statutory unitization procedures.
- 12/26/2018Every five years, Congress passes legislation that sets national agriculture, nutrition, conservation, and forestry policy. Significantly, the Farm Bill contains various provisions that will impact the agriculture industry.
- 11/27/2018Vorys attorneys Tom Fusonie, Dan Shuey and Andrew Guran co-authored an article for Farm and Dairy titled “Nuisance Lawsuits May Threaten Livestock Farmers.”
- 12/27/2017Tom Fusonie and Dan Shuey, attorneys in the Vorys Columbus office, co-authored an article for Franchising World titled “Four Questions to Consider When Construction Impacts Your Business.”
- 12/14/2017The ten-year anniversary of the last significant reform to Ohio’s eminent domain law presents an opportunity to revisit and reexamine the use of eminent domain law and its impact on Ohio’s farmers.
- 11/6/2017It is Your Land, But the Government is Flooding it: is Just Compensation Available in Eminent Domain?Flooding often is caused by natural disasters. But unfortunately, past flood events have also been caused or worsened by federal, state and local governments’ actions or inactions.
- 9/19/2016Whistleblower Defense Alert: Seventh Circuit’s Latest Interpretation of Rule 9(b) Sets the Pleading Bar Higher for RelatorsEarlier this month, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit established a standard for application of Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b) that significantly strengthens the bar imposed by the heightened pleading requirements of that rule.
- 6/16/2016On Thursday, June 16, 2016 the United States Supreme Court released its decision in Universal Health Services, Inc. v. United States ex rel. Escobar (No. 15-7). In Escobar—argued on April 19, 2016—the Court decided the legal validity of the “implied certification” theory of liability under the False Claims Act (FCA).
- 4/22/2016Whistleblower Defense Alert: Supreme Court Hears Arguments on Implied Certification Theory of FCA LiabilityOn Tuesday, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Universal Health Services, Inc. v. U.S. ex rel. Escobar.
- 8/12/2015Whistleblower Defense Alert: D.C. Circuit Upholds Assertion of Privilege as to Internal Investigation Documents in FCA SuitOn Tuesday, August 11, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit released a decision upholding an assertion of privilege by Kellogg Brown and Root, Inc. (KBR) over internal investigation documents in a FCA suit alleging kickbacks and overbilling on Iraq war subcontracts.
- 8/3/2015Whistleblower Defense Alert: Three Questions Every FCA Defendant Should Ask To Evaluate Whether Claim Preclusion Can Fill The Gap Created By The Supreme Court’s Interpretation Of The First-To-File RuleA decision last week in an FCA case in Pennsylvania confirms that the FCA’s first-to-file bar has been weakened. See U.S. ex rel. Boise v. Cephalon, Inc., No. 08-CV-287 (E.D. Pa.). The court in the Cephalon case confirmed that the Supreme Court’s decision in Kellogg Brown & Root Servs., Inc. v. United States ex rel. Carter means that the first-to-file bar does not apply when a previously filed case is no longer pending.
- 7/20/2015The Ninth Circuit’s recent decision in U.S. ex rel. Hartpence v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc., 2015 U.S. App. Lexis 11643 (9th. Cir. July 7, 2015), overruled existing Ninth Circuit precedent regarding the requirements for meeting the public disclosure rule’s original source exception, weakening the public disclosure bar in the Ninth Circuit and opening the door for increased qui tam activity within that jurisdiction.
- 5/26/2015Whistleblower Defense Alert: Sixth Circuit Reaffirms Fair Market Value As Proper Measure of Damages, Vacates FCA Award of $657 Million to the GovernmentLast month, the Sixth Circuit reaffirmed the fair market value (FMV) standard as the primary measure of damages in False Claims Act (FCA) cases—and demonstrated the teeth of that requirement when evidence (including expert testimony) is not presented to support an FMV determination. United States v. United Technologies Corp., 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 5476 (6th Cir. April 6, 2015), represented the culmination of a decades-long dispute between the government and United Technologies’ Pratt & Whitney unit over pricing for engines supplied to the Air Force for use in its F-15 and F-16 aircraft.
- 5/26/2015Whistleblower Defense Alert: Supreme Court Holds the WSLA Does Not Apply to the Civil FCA But Limits the Scope of the First-to-File BarToday the Supreme Court issued its decision in Kellogg Brown & Root Servs., Inc. v. United States ex rel. Carter. On the first question presented, the Court held that the Wartime Suspension of Limitations Act (WSLA) applies only to criminal offenses and thus does not toll the False Claims Act’s (FCA) statute of limitations indefinitely while the United States is in armed conflict.
- 2/12/2015Courts continue to whittle away at the public disclosure bar, historically one of the best ways to dispose of parasitic qui tam lawsuits. Most recently, the Eleventh Circuit issued a ruling regarding the impact of the 2010 amendments to the False Claims Act’s (FCA) public disclosure rule. In its opinion in U.S. ex rel. Osheroff v. Humana, Inc., the Eleventh Circuitjoined the Fourth Circuit in holding that the public disclosure rule, as amended in 2010, is no longer a jurisdictional bar to an FCA action. Instead, under the amended version of the statute, defendants now must move to dismiss allegations that have been publicly disclosed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
- 2/5/2015Whistleblower Defense Alert: Sixth Circuit Affirms Importance of Government Witnesses in Materiality AnalysisA recent Sixth Circuit opinion provides defendants a valuable roadmap for using government witness testimony to defeat False Claims Act (FCA) claims on materiality grounds at the summary judgment stage. In U.S. ex rel. American Systems Consulting, Inc. v. ManTech Advanced Systems Int’l Inc., Case No. 14-3269 (6th Cir.), the court rejected the relator’s argument that materiality decisions should be left to a jury. Instead, the court expressly held that “a judge may decide as a matter of law whether a misrepresentation was material under the FCA.”
- 1/14/2015Whistleblower Defense Alert: Fourth Circuit’s Opinion Shows Influence of Government’s Decision to Intervene on Court’s Determination of MaterialityOn January 8, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reinstated the government’s False Claims Act (FCA) claims in United States v. Triple Canopy, Inc., No. 13-2190. In reversing the district court’s dismissal of the government’s case, the Fourth Circuit highlighted, both explicitly and implicitly, the importance of the government’s decision to intervene in the case.
- 1/9/2015Whistleblower Defense Alert: District Court Imposes $1.6 Million Sanction Against Relators for Violating the FCA SealEarlier this week, Judge Amy Totenberg of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia imposed significant monetary sanctions against a pair of relators who blatantly and repeatedly violated the seal order in a pending qui tam action, United States ex rel. Bibby v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Case No. 1:06-CV-0547-AT.
- 12/5/2014Whistleblower Defense Alert: Department of Justice Announces Third Straight Year of Record-Breaking False Claims Act RecoveriesAccording to a recent Department of Justice press release regarding annual False Claims Act (FCA) recoveries, FCA recoveries continue to skyrocket, in keeping with the trend in recent years. 2014 marks the third straight year in which the Department of Justice has announced a record-setting annual recovery.
- 10/16/2014Whistleblower Defense Alert: Court Finds Relator Ill-Suited To Question Federal Agency’s Judgment, Tosses Qui Tam SuitLast week, the District of Kansas granted summary judgment to Boeing in U.S. ex rel. Smith v. The Boeing Company, Case No. 05-10730MLB (D. Kan.), a False Claims Act case in which the qui tam relators effectively tried to second-guess the professional judgment of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).
- 7/2/2014Whistleblower Defense Alert: D.C. Circuit Grants Writ of Mandamus and Protects Privilege of Internal Corporate InvestigationsLast week, the D.C. Circuit provided good news to defense contractors, health care providers and all other corporate entities doing business with the government. In a forceful opinion, the court overruled a trial court decision that portended disastrous consequences for privileged internal investigations by corporate legal departments.
- 7/1/2014Whistleblower Defense Alert: The Supreme Court Will Review Fourth Circuit Decision that Weakened the False Claims Act’s Statute of Limitations and First-to-File BarToday, the Supreme Court granted the petition for certiorari in Kellogg Brown & Root Servs., Inc. v. United States ex rel. Carter. The petition presented two questions: (1) whether the Wartime Suspension of Limitations Act (WSLA) applies to claims of civil fraud brought by qui tam relators, and (2) whether the False Claims Act’s (FCA) first-to-file rule is an absolute bar or whether it permits subsequent actions so long as the first-filed action had been dismissed on non-merits grounds prior to filing of the subsequent action.
- 6/2/2014Whistleblower Defense Alert: Defeating a Whistleblower’s Cursory Allegations of Scienter in FCA Cases Involving a Defendant’s Good Faith Interpretation of a Regulation or ContractA recent decision dismissing a whistleblower’s complaint with prejudice is good news for companies facing a False Claims Act (FCA) case that turns on the interpretation of a regulation or contractual provision. In U.S. ex rel. Thompson v. Honeywell Int’l, Inc., Case No. CV 12-2214-JAK (C.D. Cal.), the court articulated a clear and defendant-friendly formulation of the pleading standard for scienter in such cases.
- 3/27/2014Whistleblower Defense Client Alert: Using Government Witnesses to Obtain Summary Judgment on a Qui Tam Relator’s FCA ClaimsA recent False Claims Act decision serves as an important reminder that although qui tam relators may “stand in the shoes” of the government for purposes of bringing a lawsuit, they are not entitled to substitute their judgment for that of key government decision-makers to avoid summary judgment.