Robert has successfully defended FCA actions at trial, summary judgment, appeal and at the pleading stage.

• Represented Golden Living in an FCA action where the federal government had sued Golden Living’s predecessor company, Beverly Enterprises, for $895 million, alleging that Beverly had engaged in an unlawful kickback scheme with McKesson Corp. in violation of the Anti-Kickback Act and the FCA. After 14 days of trial, the court ruled that Beverly and McKesson did not violate the FCA or the Anti-Kickback Act because their business negotiations were fair, reasonable and conducted in good faith. Reported Decision: United States of America ex rel. Jamison v. McKesson Corp., 900 F. Supp. 2d 683 (N.D. Miss. 2012).

Recent Successful FCA Actions at Summary Judgment

• Represented Aegis Therapies (a rehabilitation therapy company) and a Golden Living skilled nursing facility (SNF) where the federal government had alleged that defendants provided medically unnecessary rehabilitation therapy. The district court granted defendants’ summary judgment motion. Reported Decision: United States ex rel. Lawson v. Aegis Therapies, Inc., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45221 (S.D. Ga. Mar. 31, 2015).
• Represented a physician and multispecialty group practice that the government accused of providing medically unnecessary services. The district court dismissed all of the government’s claims on summary judgment. Ultimately, because the United States’ action lacked “substantial justification,” the U.S. was ordered to pay defendants more than $400,000 in legal fees. In making the ruling, the court ruled that Medicare fraud law is an area of expertise and that it was undisputed that Robert possessed such expertise. Reported Decision: United States v. Prabhu, 442 F. Supp. 2d 1008 (D. Nev. 2006).
• Represented Golden Living in an action where relator and government sued multiple defendants alleging that they violated the FCA because they knowingly created and operated a supply company in violation of Medicare Supplier Standards. The district court granted defendants’ summary judgment motion regarding the Supplier Standards allegations, finding that the government’s prior administrative proceedings demonstrated that the defendant supply company was entitled to payment. Reported Decision: United States of America ex rel. Jamison v. McKesson Corporation, 784 F. Supp. 2d 664 (N.D. Miss. 2011).
• Represented Huron Consulting Group in a qui tam action alleging that Huron caused St. Vincent’s Catholic Medical Centers to inflate its charges to obtain an unlawfully excessive amount of Medicare outlier payments. At summary judgment, the court dismissed plaintiff’s claim, ruling that there could be no FCA violation as a matter of law because the alleged practice—raising charges on the chargemaster, which resulted in the receipt of additional outlier payments—”was not forbidden by either regulation or standard practice.” Reported Decision: United States ex rel. Assoc. Against Outlier Fraud v. Huron Consulting Grp., Inc., 929 F. Supp. 2d 245 (S.D.N.Y. 2013).