Report from Annapolis on the Maryland False Claims Act
I am just back from a full day in Annapolis where, I am pleased to report, resistance to the idea of a Maryland False Claims Act seems to be crumbling.
This year, two different versions of a state FCA were introduced in the Maryland Senate—one version, SB 279 was a health care only bill, and was introduced by Lt. Gov. Brown and Gov. O'Malley. Meanwhile, SB 187, which was introduced by Sen. Lenett and Sen. Raskin, is a full fledged Maryland False Claims Act.
You can read Lt. Gov. Brown's press release on today's Senate hearings here. I was invited up by Lt. Gov. Brown (along with TAF President Jeb White, Peter Chatfield of Phillips & Cohen, Pat O'Connell of Baron & Budd, and Daniel Miller of Berger & Montague), to testify in support of the Md FCA. In particular, I was asked to speak from the view of a private sector qui tam lawyer about Virginia's experience with the implementation of our own Virginia Fraud Against Taxpayers Act, and the public-private partnership that has thrived in Virginia.
Tom Russell, Maryland's Inspector General, and Ilene Nathan, the Director of Maryland's MFCU helped to guide us through the legislative session and prepared us for what we might expect.
We were honored with a private meeting with Lt. Gov. Brown himself. It was the first time I had ever met him, and I must say I was impressed both with the Lt. Gov. himself and with the work his office put into preparing for the hearings. Lt. Gov. Brown is a former Army aviator and the recipient of a Bronze Star. He continues his service in the Army Reserve to this day, and is the highest raking politician to have served an active tour of duty in Iraq. I definitely think Gov. O'Malley picked the right guy to handle this job.
By and large, the Senators all seemed pretty open to our testimony, and it definitely seemed like the health care lobbyists got the more hostile questions. It also seems like none of the Senators appreciated some of the exaggerations made by those folks.
The testimony of the healthcare lobbyists was also interesting because it drove home the power of qui tam whistleblowers. It seems the battle in Maryland has shifted for the healthcare lobbyists. The last two years, they focused on trying to prevent a Md FCA in any form; now, they seem to have shifted to trying to contain the "damage" from their point of view.
I say this because a number of the lobbyists now admit that a Maryland False Claims Act is needed—but they are focusing on trying force a compromise on to the qui tam provisions of any such law. Perhaps "compromise" is not the right word—they want Maryland to have a FCA without a qui tam provision, which would mean that an insider with first hand knowledge of fraud on the state government would not be able to come forward and prosecute the claim on behalf of the state.
Needless to say, a Maryland False Claims Act without a qui tam provision would be no good at all. It would not qualify Maryland for an enhanced percentage under the DRA of 2005, and it would not give Maryland law enforcement the tool it really needs—motivated insiders with first-hand knowledge of fraud on the government.
No one is quite sure when the actual Senate vote will be held. Meanwhile, the House of Delegates will hold hearings on March 10 on its own bill. Lets keep our fingers crossed.
Posted by Zachary Kitts at 2/23/2010 3:40 PM 
Categories: Litigation, Virginia Qui Tam filings, False Claims Act Practice in Virginia, False Claims Act, State False Claims Act News
Tags: Qui Tam Litigation in Virginia Virginia Fraud Against Taxpayers Act State false claims act news Federal False Claims Act Virginia Legal Blogs
Categories: Litigation, Virginia Qui Tam filings, False Claims Act Practice in Virginia, False Claims Act, State False Claims Act News
Tags: Qui Tam Litigation in Virginia Virginia Fraud Against Taxpayers Act State false claims act news Federal False Claims Act Virginia Legal Blogs
Comments