[caption id="attachment_2360" align="alignright" width="206"] Nathaniel M. Glasser and Daniel C. Fundakowski[/caption]
Last month, in United States ex rel. Helfer v. Associated Anesthesiologists of Springfield, Ltd., No. 3:10-cv-03076 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 14, 2016), the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois held that the retaliation provision of the False Claims Act (“FCA”) requires a whistleblower to show that protected activity was the “but-for” cause of the alleged adverse action.
The FCA’s retaliation provision entitles an employee to ...
Blog Editors
Recent Updates
- DOJ’s False Claims Act Recoveries Top $2.9 Billion in FY 2024, but Health Care Numbers Dip—What Could FY 2025 Hold for Health Care Enforcement?
- Recent Developments in Health Care Cybersecurity and Oversight: 2024 Wrap Up and 2025 Outlook
- Massachusetts Governor Maura Healey Signs into Law a Sweeping Health Care Market Oversight Bill
- Second Circuit Adopts “At Least One Purpose” Rule for False Claims Act Cases Premised on Anti-Kickback Statute Violations
- Supreme Court of Ohio Decides on a Peer-Review Privilege Issue in Stull v. Summa