Category: Uncategorized

Philadelphia Whistleblower Lawyers: False Claims Act Violation

By ,

A former employee of MedStar Health Inc. has filed a whistleblower lawsuit against her employer under the False Claims Act. Court documents allege the company engaged in fraudulent activity together with a vendor, Accretive Health Inc., to boost Medicare inpatient claims at hospitals.

Claims of Medicare Fraud

Medicare pays more to hospitals for patients who are admitted for inpatient care than it does for patients who are on observation status. The plaintiff claims that while working at MedStar Washington Hospital’s emergency department, she helped to submit false claims to Medicaid, Medicare and Tricare. She alleges that Accretive took patients who were on observation status and created written recommendations for them that justified admitting them as inpatients. The Accretive personnel making the recommendations did not have the qualifications or even the information required to do so. The suit alleges that MedStar staff were then pressured into accepting the recommendations.

The lawsuit alleges that Accretive went as far as to claim to hospital administrators at different hospitals around the country that they could provide a revenue lift from Medicare. The suit describes a system designed by Accretive to exploit the administrators’ need for revenue and diminish the authority of the hospitals’ own doctors by overriding them with the fraudulent recommendations.

The False Claims Act

The False Claims Act is a federal law that holds people and companies liable for defrauding the government. It is the government’s primary tool for litigation against fraud. The Act’s qui tam provision enables private citizens to bring suit on behalf of the government. This is commonly known as whistleblowing. Whistleblowers filing under the False Claims Act receive a portion of the money recovered – usually between 15 to 25 percent. Whistleblowers are also entitled to protection against retaliation because they exposed fraud.

Philadelphia Whistleblower Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. Represent Whistleblowers in False Claims Act Cases

Qui tam cases are complex and require thorough knowledge of whistleblower law. The Philadelphia whistleblower lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. can review your case if you believe that you have been retaliated against for whistleblowing. Call 215-574-0600 to schedule an appointment in our Philadelphia offices or contact us online. We serve clients throughout Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers: Oxford Comma Overtime Dispute

By ,

A group of truck drivers recently filed a class action lawsuit alleging that they were not paid overtime as required by state law. The trucking company countered that they were exempt from coverage under the law. The entire case hinged on the controversial use (or lack thereof) of the Oxford comma. The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit ruled in favor of the truck drivers, awarding them an estimated $10 million.

By way of background, the Oxford comma, also called the serial comma, is used to separate the last two items in a list. For example, people in favor of the Oxford comma would write “apples, oranges, and pears.” People who dislike the Oxford comma would write “apples, oranges and pears.”

In Maine, where this matter occurred, workers must be paid time and a half of their normal rate of pay for each hour worked after 40 hours. However, there are exemptions. The Maine law says that overtime rules do not apply to those who work in: “the canning, processing, preserving, freezing, drying, marketing, storing, packing for shipping or distribution of (various food items).”

The three dairy delivery truck drivers who filed the lawsuit distribute perishable foods, but they do not pack the goods. The ambiguity with the language of the law is whether the word “packing” modifies both “shipping” and “distribution,” or just “shipping.” If there were a comma after the word shipping, it would have been clear that the delivery drivers were entitled to the overtime pay.

The court of appeals ruled that the absence of a comma produced enough uncertainty to rule in favor of the truck drivers, and reversed the ruling of the court below. The law followed the guidelines set forth in the Maine Legislative Drafting Manual, which explicitly instructs lawmakers not to use the Oxford comma, but does note that legislators should use caution if an item in the series is modified.

The delivery drivers earned between $46,800 and $52,000 a year without overtime. They worked an average of 12 extra hours per week. Although only three drivers filed the class-action lawsuit, 75 drivers will split the award.

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green Represent Clients in Wage and Overtime Disputes

The Philadelphia overtime dispute lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green represent individuals in wage and hour lawsuits and those who believe they are owed overtime pay. To learn more about how we can help you, call us today at 215-574-0600 or contact us online to schedule a confidential consultation in our Philadelphia offices.

Philadelphia Whistleblower Lawyers: Whistleblower in California Receives Substantial Award

By ,

A whistleblower at a California based life science company has been awarded nearly $8 million by the jurors hearing his case. The claimant served as general counsel at Bio-Rad when he discovered possible bribery being committed in China by senior management of the company. He duly reported the potential violations of the Federal Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) internally to an audit committee that investigated them and concluded there had been no wrongdoing.

The investigation lasted four months after the internal memo was originally filed by the informant in February of 2013. In June that same year, the plaintiff was fired after 25 years of service at Bio-Rad. The company claimed his termination was due to his erratic work and loud outbursts, but his 2012 performance review was largely positive. No documentation of the alleged behavioral problems existed aside from a review in April 2013. The trial hinged on the plaintiff’s team using metadata to show that the review had actually been created in July, after the firing.  Attorneys for the plaintiff called the review “a despicable lie” and said it had been fabricated to justify his wrongful termination.

The jury deliberated less than three hours and unanimously found that Bio-Rad had fired the counselor in retaliation for his whistleblowing actions. He was awarded $2.9 million in back pay and stock compensation, along with $5 million in punitive damages. Because the Dodd-Frank Act doubles back pay for whistleblower retaliation, the award total will increase to nearly $11 million.

In November 2014, Bio-Rad was forced to pay $55 million in fines to settle violations of the FCPA. The Department of Justice and Securities and Exchange Commission brought criminal charges and civil claims against the company alleging improper payments were made to foreign officials in Vietnam, Thailand, and Russia. In testimony, the whistleblower said he had found documents detailing the distribution of free products to clients in China. He filed his qui tam lawsuit against Bio-Rad and its CEO charging the disclosure of his findings should have been protected under the whistleblower provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. The jury agreed, awarding the man one of the highest amounts ever granted under the Act.

Philadelphia Whistleblower Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. Defend Whistleblowers

If you suspect wrongdoing at your workplace it takes tremendous courage to step forward and blow the whistle on such conduct. There are laws to protect whistleblowers and prevent retaliation against them. The Philadelphia whistleblower lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green are here to discuss your situation with you and provide guidance. Call 215-574-0600 or contact us online to schedule an appointment at our Philadelphia offices. We represent clients throughout Pennsylvania and South Jersey.

 

 

 

Philadelphia FINRA Lawyers: UBS Seeks to Overturn FINRA Ruling

By ,

Swiss financial wirehouse UBS is seeking to vacate a Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) ruling and $18.5 million award on the basis that two out of three arbitrators on the case were not impartial. UBS claims that one of the clients involved in the case went against their financial recommendations, a decision leading to substantial losses. However, the crux of USB’s case to overturn the award is their assertion that arbitrators failed to disclose concerning personal and professional financial details prior to their involvement in the case.

The case was initially decided in favor of the plaintiffs, a married couple, who won damages based on UBS sale of closed-end funds of Puerto Rican bonds, claiming unsuitability and breach of fiduciary duty. The claimants also accuse UBS of violating Puerto Rico’s own financial statutes. The couple initiated their arbitration a year after the Puerto Rican bond market collapsed. They allege that UBS misled clients about the potential vulnerability of their investments, while artificially inflating the local demand for bonds.

A FINRA three-member arbitration panel found that UBS failed in their obligation to these clients. FINRA is a not-for-profit organization dedicated to ensuring the integrity of broker-dealer industry and protecting investors. FINRA is not a part of the government, but is authorized by Congress. FINRA supervises more than 635,000 brokers and 3,900 securities firms.

Philadelphia FINRA Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green Resolve the Toughest Business Law Cases

Philadelphia FINRA lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green bring experience and knowledge to business law cases. If you are seeking representation in a FINRA matter, call our Philadelphia offices today at 215-574-0600 or contact us online to discuss your situation.

Philadelphia Wage Dispute Lawyers: Third Circuit Rules That Overtime Class Action Cannot Proceed In Arbitration

By ,

Recently, the Third Circuit weighed in on the issue of whether it is up to courts or arbitrators to decide if a class action lawsuit should be adjudicated in court, or in an arbitral forum. This case also dealt with the issue of whether an employment agreement that is silent on the issue of class arbitration permits employees to proceed on a class-wide basis on that basis. In Opalinski v. Robert Half International, the 3rd Circuit sided against the plaintiffs who wished to proceed on a class wide basis in arbitration. The case involved employees of the placement firm, Robert Half.

The plaintiffs were two former staffing managers at Robert Half in New Jersey. The men claim that they were improperly classified as exempt from overtime pay, and wrongfully denied such pay in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The defense argued that when the men signed their employment contracts, they waived their right to resolve employment disputes in court. Their contracts provided that such disputes must be submitted to arbitration. However, their contracts were silent in regards to class wide arbitration. The two men brought an action on behalf of themselves and other putative class members who were denied overtime pay.

Shortly after filing the claim, a United States Dihttps://overtimestrict Court judge granted the defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of the employees’ individual claims. However, the district court determined that the arbitral forum had jurisdiction to decide whether class wide arbitration was permissible.  The arbitrator found that such claims could proceed on a class basis in arbitration – and when the defendant sought to overturn this ruling in district court, the trial court sided with the plaintiffs.  Subsequently, the defendant appealed this ruling and the 3rd Circuit reversed and remanded, finding that the decision lies with the courts. The United States Supreme Court then declined to hear the case on appeal. After the case was remanded, the district court granted Robert Half’s motion to dismiss, finding that parties cannot be compelled to submit to class wide arbitration unless there is a contractual basis for concluding such.

The plaintiffs appealed this decision yet again, and the 3rd Circuit recently ruled against them, finding it had already “explicitly decided,” in a precedential opinion in this same case, that the question of arbitrability of class claims is for the court, not the arbitrator, to decide.

Philadelphia Wage Dispute Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green Represent Clients in All Types of Wage Dispute Cases

At Sidkoff, Pincus & Green, we routinely handle FLSA claims involving unpaid overtime. Our respected Philadelphia wage dispute lawyers are prepared to answer whatever questions you may have. To schedule a confidential consultation, call us today at 215-574-0600 or contact us online.

 

 

 

Philadelphia Consumer Protection Lawyers Discuss the Unfair Trade Practices Consumer Protection Law

By ,

Pennsylvania’s Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, 73 P.S. § 201-1 et seq. (“UTPCPL”) is Pennsylvania’s consumer protection law. It seeks to prevent “[un]fair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce….” Id. § 201–3. Its aim is to protect the public from unfair or deceptive business practices.

The UTPCPL provides a private right of action for anyone who “suffers any ascertainable loss of money or property” because of an unlawful method, act or practice. See id. § 201–9.2(a). Upon a finding of liability, the court has the discretion to award “up to three times the actual damages sustained” and provide any additional relief the court deems proper. Id.  There are 20 enumerated practices which constitute actionable “unfair methods of competition” or “unfair or deceptive acts or practices.” Id. § 201–2(4)(i)–(xx). The UTPCPL also contains a catchall provision which refers to “[e]ngaging in any other fraudulent or deceptive conduct which creates a likelihood of confusion of or misunderstanding.” Id. § 201–2(4)(xxi).

In order to establish a private right of action under the UTPCPL, a plaintiff must demonstrate that he/she detrimentally relied upon the deceptive practice of the defendant and that the plaintiff suffered harm as a result of this reliance. Toy v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 863 A.2d 1, 9 (Pa. Super. 2004).  It is the plaintiff’s burden to demonstrate the level of reliance that normally accompanies a common law fraud claim.  This means a plaintiff must show not just reliance on the misrepresentation, but also that the reliance was justifiable.  Id. at 11.

Philadelphia Consumer Protection Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green Represent Consumers in Claims for Fraud and Unfair Trade Practices

If you have been defrauded or subject to an unfair or deceptive business practice, you may have a valid claim under the UTPCPL, among other potential causes of action. Philadelphia consumer fraud lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green will seek maximum compensation for your damages. To learn more about how we may be able to help you, call us at 215-574-0600 or contact us online today.

 

 

 

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers Discuss the Pennsylvania Commissioned Sales Representative Act

By ,

The Pennsylvania Commissioned Sales Representative Act, 43 Pa. Stat. § 1471 et seq. (“PCSRA”) provides statutory remedies for certain sales representatives when they are not paid timely commissions. Under the PCSRA, a “principal shall pay a sales representative all commissions due at the time of termination within 14 days after termination” and “all commissions that become due after termination within 14 days of the date such commissions become due.” 43 Pa. Stat. §§ 1473–74. If a principal “willfully” violates these provisions, then the sales representative may bring a civil action to collect all unpaid commissions plus exemplary damages and attorneys’ fees. Id. § 1475. The Act thus governs the payment of commissions owed by a “principal” to a “sales representative,” and a defendant can only be liable if the plaintiff is a “sales representative” as that term is used in the Act.

A key factor in determining whether you have a claim under the PCSRA is to understand how the law defines the terms “sales representative” and “principal”.

The PCSRA defines the term “sales representative” as follows:

“Sales representative.” A person who contracts with a principal to solicit wholesale orders from retailers rather than consumers and who is compensated, in whole or in part, by commission. The term does not include one who places orders or purchases for his own account for resale or one who is an employee of a principal.

Id. § 1471.

Thus, a “sales representative” is someone who solicits wholesale orders from “retailers” rather than “consumers.”

A “principal” is defined by the PCSRA as any person who does all of the following:

(1) Engages in the business of manufacturing, producing, importing or distributing a product for sale to customers who purchase such products for resale.

(2) Utilizes sales representatives to solicit orders for such product.

(3) Compensates sales representatives, in whole or in part, by commission.

Id.

Finally, a sales representative should be cautioned against bringing a meritless claim against a principal under the PCSRA.  If judgment is entered for the principal and the court determines that the action was brought frivolously, then the principal will be awarded attorneys’ fees and costs. Id. § 1475.

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green Represent Sales Commissioned Representatives in Claims to Recover Unpaid Commissions

If you are owed unpaid commissions, you may have a valid claim under the Pennsylvania Commissioned Sales Representative Act, among other potential causes of action. Philadelphia employment lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green will seek maximum compensation for your damages. To learn more about how we may be able to help you, call us at 215-574-0600 or contact us online today.

Philadelphia Business Lawyers: Foreign Arbitration

By ,

In a recent decision out of the Second Circuit, a U.S. Court of Appeals held that American courts can enforce an international arbitral award notwithstanding the fact that it was annulled by a court in a foreign country.

In Commisa v.Pemex, a Mexican subsidiary of a Texas corporation (Commisa) sued a state-owned Mexican oil company (Pemex), regarding several contracts to build infrastructure in the Gulf of Mexico, after a Mexican arbitral tribunal awarded the Texas company over $350 million. A Mexican court later set aside the award. Commisa then sought enforcement in the United States, and a New York district court judge held that the award should be enforced. The Second Circuit affirmed his ruling.

The Second Circuit noted that under the Panama Convention, American courts must enforce the award unless one of seven defenses enumerated in the Panama Convention is established. Although one of those seven defenses (a set aside) was satisfied, the judge ruled that he was constrained by the prudential concern of international comity—and that the Mexican decision violated international policy.

Philadelphia Business Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green, P.C. frequently represent Businesses in Arbitration

If your business is involved in a commercial dispute that is subject to arbitration, the Philadelphia business lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green may be able to help you. To learn more or schedule a consultation, call us at 215-574-0600 or contact us online today.

Philadelphia Business Lawyers: Written Contracts

By ,

Written Contracts May be Modified by Subsequent Oral Agreement

It is the well-settled law of Pennsylvania that a written contract may be modified by a subsequent oral agreement by either words or conduct; and an oral modification of a written contract may be implied from a course of conduct, including acquiesce in the modification through a course of conduct consistent with acceptance.

In Muchow v. Schaffner, 119 A.2d 568 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1956), Plaintiff and Defendant entered into a written contract in which Plaintiff was to construct a building for Defendant that met certain specifications. After the agreement was executed, Plaintiff realized he could not build the building as specified in the agreement because the ground would not support it. Plaintiff called Defendant and a conversation took place in which Defendant agreed orally to the new specifications that contradicted what was written in the written contract. It was proven at trial that Defendant knew the extra work would not have to be done but for the oral agreement. When the building was finished it was materially different from the original agreement and Defendant refused to pay Plaintiff, and relied on the parol evidence rule. The Court sided with the Plaintiff and found the parol evidence rule did not bar the evidence of the oral agreement.

Furthermore, a written contract may be modified by a new contract implied from conduct or an express oral agreement, even where there is a provision expressly prohibiting non-written modifications, and a party’s conduct in accepting an oral or implied modification of a written contract can result in a waiver of language requiring all modifications to be written. First Nat’l Bank of Pa. v. Lincoln Nat’l Life Ins. Co., 824 F.2d 277, 280 (3d Cir. 1987).

For more information, call our Philadelphia  business lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green at 215-574-0600 or contact us online.

Philadelphia Business Lawyers: Communications Decency Act

By ,

State Law Claims Such as Defamation and Negligence Barred under the Communications Decency Act

Under the Communications Decency Act 47 U.S.C.A. § 230 (“CDA”), a party is immune to state law claims relating to information published on the Internet such as defamation, misappropriation of likeness, breach of contract, and negligence. § 230 of the CDA states that no cause of action may be brought and no liability may be imposed under any State or local law that is inconsistent with this section.

For example, these provisions bar state law claims against interactive computer services for publishing content obtained from another information content provider. Doe v. Friendfinder Network, Inc., 540 F. Supp. 2d 288, 293 (D.N.H. 2008). The intent of this provision is to preclude courts from entertaining claims that would place a computer service provider in a publisher’s role. Green v. Am. Online (AOL), 318 F.3d 465 (3d Cir. 2003). The Eastern District of Pennsylvania ruled that the CDA provides immunity to similar claims like misappropriation of the right of publicity, defamation, and negligence. Parker v. Google, Inc., 422 F. Supp. 2d 492, 501 (E.D. Pa. 2006), aff’d, 242 F. App’x 833 (3d Cir. 2007) citing (Carafano v. Metrosplash.com, Inc., 339 F.3d 1119, 1125 (9th Cir.) (§ 230 affords immunity from suit on claims of invasion of privacy, misappropriation of the right of publicity, defamation, and negligence)).

For more information, call our business lawyers in Philadelphia at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green at 215-574-0600 or contact us online.