Qui Tam Attorney Specialists – WARREN | BENSON is the national leader in precedent setting False Claims Act qui tam cases, including cases before Appellate Courts and the Supreme Court of the United States.
They also are a national leader in trial and appellate experience, separating their firm from any other qui tam attorney in the nation. Over the course of the past twenty years, the firm’s partner attorneys, Mr. Don Warren and Mr. Phil Benson, have been providing leading edge court representation and advocacy on issues shaping qui tam whistleblower rights.
Our results include:
- $103 million whistleblower recovery and retaliation jury verdict against two leading defense contractors for fraud in falsifying tests and product substitution on military equipment.
- $100 million aerospace labor fraud verdict against General Dynamics.
- $56.3 million combined judgment and settlement against two defense contractors for cost padding in a Lockheed contract.
- $51 million in Medicare fraud whistleblower recoveries against thirty three research hospitals, including Mt. Sinai in Florida, Scripps in California and Beth Israel in Massachusetts, for upcoding and mischarging Medicare and Tricare for the cost of experimental devices.
- $45 million Medicare fraud whistleblower recovery against a Los Angeles hospital for Stark and Anti-Kickback violations. Largest whistleblower award percentage in the history of the California False Claims Act.
- $44 million whistleblower recovery against telecommunications companies Worldcom, ATT and Sprint for falsifying surcharges under federal long distance telephone service contracts.
- $36 million whistleblower recovery against a major research university for medical research grant fraud.
- $32 million whistleblower recovery against a defense contractor for padding estimates on sole source contracts, in violation of the Truth In Negotiations Act.
- $16.6 million qui tam recovery against a nursing home chain for fraud in recording Medicare nursing hours.
- $16.5 million False Claims Act medicare fraud recovery for Stark Law and Anti-Kickback Statute violations involving HCA hospital.
- $15.3 million Medicare fraud whistleblower recovery against a county hospital for upcoding and falsely certifying mental health medical necessity determinations and for misusing physician identifier numbers to bill Medicare.
- $10.5 million defense contractor fraud recovery against Teledyne for falsifying tests on aircraft interrogator systems.
- $10 million healthcare fraud recovery against Tricare contractor for inflating claims payments.
- $9.5 million Medicare fraud recovery against Blue Cross of California for fraud in falsifying health care audits.
- $8.7 million Medicare recovery for Disproportionate Share Hospital (“DSH”) fraud.
- $8 million against pharmaceutical retailer for Anti-Kickback Statute violations.
- $7 million fraud recovery against a defense contractor for labor mis-charging on a military computer system.
- $6.8 million whistleblower recovery for Medicare faud involving medical devices.
- $6.5 million recovery against Mayo Clinic for mis-charging costs on federal NIH research grants.
- $6.4 million recovery against two heart monitoring companies for Medicare fraud.
- $4.5 million whistleblower recovery for defense contractor fraud from proposal padding on a development contract for missile guidance system, in violation of the Truth In Negotiations Act.
- $4.4 million qui tam recovery against Durable Medical Equipment (DME) supplier for faulty products.
- $4 million whistleblower recovery against a construction contractor for fraud from inflating indirect labor costs, in violation of the Truth In Negotiations Act.
- $3.4 million defense contractor fraud whistleblower recovery against an aircraft manufacturer for substandard quality assurance practices, among others.
- $3 million fraud recovery against airport contractors for padding bills and bid rigging.
The firm’s published cases and precedents include:
- United States ex rel. Kelly v. Boeing Co., 9 F.3d 743 (9th Cir.1993), cert. den. at 510 U.S. 1140, 114 S.Ct. 1125.
National Precedent – First appellate case in the nation to uphold the constitutionality of the qui tam law.
- United States ex rel. Madden v. General Dynamics Corporation, 4 F.3d 527 (9th Cir. 1993)
National Precedent – First case in the nation to hold a defendant is barred from filing counter-claims against a qui tam plaintiff. Second appellate case in the nation to uphold constitutionality of the qui tam law.
- United States ex rel Barajas v. Northrop Corporation, 5 F.3d 407 (9th Cir. 1993), on remand 897 F. Supp. 1274 (C.D. Cal. 1995)
National Precedent – First case in the nation to determine that a qui tam relator is entitled to a reward as to additional fraud discovered by the government during the course of investigating the qui tam relator’s case. Definition of “original source.”
- United Statesex rel. Gibeault, et al. v. Texas Instruments Corp., 25 F.3d 725 (9th Cir. 1994)
National Precedent – First case in the nation to limit the government’s right to object to a qui tam plaintiff’s settlement.
- United States ex rel. Schumer v. Hughes Aircraft Co., 63 F.3d 1512 (9th Cir. 1995)
National Precedent – First case in the nation to hold that a violation of Cost Accounting Standards (CAS) is a basis for a False Claims Act case. First case in the nation to hold that a defendant’s internal disclosures do not constitute a public disclosure for the purpose of the qui tam jurisdictional bar. First modern qui tam case to be reviewed by the United States Supreme Court.
- United States ex. rel Hyatt v. Northrop Corporation, 91 F.3d 1211 (9th Cir. 1996)
First case in the nation to analyze the expanded Statute of Limitations under the False Claims Act.
- United States ex rel. Virani v. Jerry Lewis Truck Parts & Equipment, Inc., 89 F.3d 574 (9th Cir. 1996)
National Precedent – First appellate case in the nation to analyze qui tam plaintiff’s entitlement to statutory attorney fees.
- Hughes Aircraft Co. v. United States ex rel Schumer, 520 U.S. 939 (Sup. Ct. 1997)
National Precedent – First modern qui tam case to be reviewed by the Supreme Court. First case to examine the retroactivity of the 1986 amendments to the False Claims Act.
- Cedars Sinai Medical Center, et al, v. Shalala; and Qui Tam Relator, 125 F.3d 765 (9th Cir. 1997)
National Precedent – First case in the nation to hold that a challenge to the validity of Medicare Hospital Manual rules is not a defense to a False Claims Act case.
- United States ex rel. Zissler v. University of Minnesota,154 F.3d 870 (8th Cir. 1998)
National Precedent – First case in the nation to hold that States and State entities are subject to suit under the federal False Claims Act.
- United States ex rel Biddle v. Stanford University, 161 F.3d 533 (9th Cir. 1998)
Analysis of the False Claims Act’s “voluntary disclosure” requirement under the original source provision of section 3760(e)(4)(B).
- United States ex rel Barajas v. United States of America v. Northrop Corporation, 258 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2001)
National Precedent – First case in the nation to establish a qui tam relator’s right to a recovery under the False Claims Act’s “Alternate Remedy” provision.
- United States ex relHoefer v. Fluor Daniel, 92 F.Supp 2d 1055 (C.D. Cal 2002)
First case in the Ninth Circuit to hold the False Claims Act does not preempt state claim for wrongful discharge and retaliation.
- United States ex rel Kinney v. Stoltz, 327, F.3d 671 (8th Cir. 2003)
Analysis of the False Claims Act’s “direct and independent knowledge” requirement under the original source provision of section 3730(e)(4)(B).
- In re Cardiac Devices Qui Tam Litigation, 221 FRD 318 (D. Conn. 2004)
National Precedent – First case in the nation to hold a false claim made in violation of a Medicare Manual provision regarding coverage under the Medicare Act’s “reasonable and necessary” services section, is a violation of the False Claims Act.
- United States ex rel Barajas v. Northrop Corporation, CV 87-7288 (C.D. Cal. 2004)
National Precedent – First case in the nation establishing entitlement to recover attorney fees from defendant, for pursuing a case in which the Government obtained an “alternate remedy.”
- United States ex rel Sialic v. Sequel, et al. 402 F.Supp. 2d 1142 (C.D. Cal. 2005)
First case in the Ninth Circuit to hold a federal grantee’s innocent submission of a false claim resulting from a contractor’s knowing false claim, satisfies the “presentment” requirement under the False Claims Act despite the purported contrary holding by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.
- United States ex rel Oliver v. Parsons Corporation, 498 F.Supp. 2d 1260 (C.D. Cal. 2006)
National Precedent – First case in the nation to hold that a defense contractor omission of material fact in a CASB Disclosure Statement is a violation of the False Claims Act.
- Berg v. Honeywell Int’l, Inc., 502 F. Appx. 674 (9th Cir. 2012)
Government’s dissemination of an audit report to a private company hired by the government to audit a contract does not trigger the public disclosure bar.
- United States ex rel. Ketroser v. Mayo Found., 729 F.3d 825 (8th Cir 2013)
Information developed in other litigation’s discovery process, but not filed in court, does not trigger the public disclosure bar.
- Berg v. Honeywell Int’l, Inc., 580 Fed.Appx. 559 (9th Cir. 2014)
Government officials’ knowledge of a claim’s falsity is not a defense to liability, but it may be “highly relevant” in demonstrating that the government contractor “did not submit its claim in deliberate ignorance or reckless disregard of the truth.” However, because this is a fact-specific inquiry that requires the court to draw inferences from evidence in the record, it is therefore appropriate only “at the summary judgment stage or after trial,” but not at the motion to dismiss stage.