High court restricts whistleblower lawsuits
Lawyer Blogs
The Supreme Court on Tuesday placed limits on existing whistleblower lawsuits alleging local governments misused federal money, in a decision that produced newcomer Sonia Sotomayor's first dissenting opinion.
But the just-enacted health care overhaul law contains a provision that changed the federal False Claims Act in a way that would appear to allow new, similar lawsuits to go forward.
The court voted 7-2 to hold that a technical, though important aspect, of the federal whistleblower law applies to local governments. One section of the law prohibits whistleblower lawsuits when public disclosure of the alleged fraud occurs through a court hearing, a news report or congressional or administrative audit.
In an opinion by Justice John Paul Stevens, the court ruled that the language on administrative audits refers to a report prepared by any government, not just a federal government document. The question had divided federal appeals courts.
Justice Sotomayor dissented, saying her colleagues "misread the statutory text" to limit whistleblower claims. Justice Stephen Breyer joined the dissenting opinion.
But, in any event, the health care legislation signed by President Barack Obama last week changed the false claims law so that it now refers specifically to federal reports. Stevens noted the change in a footnote to his opinion, but said it did not affect pending lawsuits.
Related listings
-
Court rebuffs Pa. man who didn't accept vote tally
Lawyer Blogs 03/30/2010A failed Pennsylvania judicial candidate who couldn't believe he received so few votes says he's finished fighting now that the U.S. Supreme Court has refused to hear his case.Robert Pritchard Sr., of Fairchance, got 63 votes for a district judge pos...
-
High court weighs fraud lawsuit vs. Aussie bank
Lawyer Blogs 03/30/2010The Supreme Court indicated Monday it could prohibit foreign investors from using U.S. securities law and American courts to sue a foreign bank for fraud.The court heard argument in a challenge from Australian investors who want to sue the Melbourne-...
-
Lawyers await hearing on combining Toyota lawsuits
Lawyer Blogs 03/26/2010As lawsuits over Toyota acceleration problems multiply nationwide, more than 150 attorneys gathered Wednesday to sharpen their legal skills on the eve of a major federal court hearing on whether dozens of cases will be consolidated before a single ju...
Illinois Work Injury Lawyers – Krol, Bongiorno & Given, LTD.
Accidents in the workplace are often caused by unsafe work conditions arising from ignoring safety rules, overlooking maintenance or other negligence of those in management. While we are one of the largest firms in Illinois dedicated solely to the representation of injured workers, we pride ourselves on the personal, one-on-one approach we deliver to each client.
Work accidents can cause serious injuries and sometimes permanent damage. Some extremely serious work injuries can permanently hinder a person’s ability to get around and continue their daily duties. Factors that affect one’s quality of life such as place of work, relationships with friends and family, and social standing can all be taken away quickly by a work injury. Although, you may not be able to recover all of your losses, you may be entitled to compensation as a result of your work injury. Krol, Bongiorno & Given, LTD. provides informed advocacy in all kinds of workers’ compensation claims, including:
• Injuries to the back and neck, including severe spinal cord injuries
• Serious head injuries
• Heart problems resulting from workplace activities
• Injuries to the knees, elbows, shoulders and other joints
• Injuries caused by repetitive movements
For Illinois Workers’ Compensation claims, you will ALWAYS cheat yourself if you do not hire an experienced attorney. When you hire Krol, Bongiorno & Given, Ltd, you will have someone to guide you through the process, and when it is time to settle, we will add value to your case IN EXCESS of our fee. In the last few years, employers and insurance carriers have sought to advance the argument that when you settle a case without an attorney, your already low settlement should be further reduced by 20% so that you do not get a “windfall.” Representing yourself in Illinois is a lose-lose proposition.