Double-billing Settlement Highlights Whistleblower Concerns

Double-billing Settlement Highlights Whistleblower Concerns
Media Health Leaders
June 12, 2009

The University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey paid over $7 million to settle a qui tam lawsuit alleging that it bilked Medicaid in a long-running double-billing scheme. However, if it had followed the government’s self-disclosure process, it could have saved millions. “It’s a bet,” said Nolan Auerbach managing partner Marcella Auerbach. “They are betting on the fact they won’t get caught.” When concerns were initially raised by the physician-whistleblower, the University turned a deaf ear to his concerns and fired him. “These people are fired for bringing points up,” Ms. Auerbach said, “Then they come to us and they have two claims.”

OUR PROMISE Being a healthcare whistleblower can feel like David taking on Goliath. We help level the playing field.

Our law practice is dedicated exclusively to representing healthcare whistleblowers who are willing to take a stand against unscrupulous corporations that are ripping off our government. Whether the fraud involves __________, we pride ourselves on unparalleled level of service, support and legal assistance for our clients.

    Contact Us

    Contact Us

    The more detailed the response, the more likely it is that we will be able to evaluate and determine if your potential False Claims Act case falls within our case requirements. IF IT DOES, WE WILL RESPOND TO YOU WITHIN 24 HOURS. (Names of potential defendants are not necessary at this point, should you feel more comfortable omitting them.) By law, all communications to us are 100% confidential.

    No. of Employees at the Company?
    Please read the following statement and then click "Send Form":

    Any response to your e-mail will be solely to communicate about our possible representation of you under the qui tam provisions of the False Claims Act. All e-mails submitted to us, whether we take your case or not, are 100% confidential. If we do not respond to your e-mail, then you have communicated information which we cannot address because it appears to fall outside of the False Claims Act or our case requirements.