SIGN UP NOW
Follow the NWC on Twitter!Follow the NWC on Facebook!

Graham County wins again, but new healthcare law blunts the effect

Today the U.S. Supreme Court handed another victory to the Graham County Soil and Water Conservation District, dealing a setback to whistleblower Karen Wilson's lawsuit. In the 7-2 decision, the high court agreed with the fraudsters that their own internal "audit report" and another report by a state agency counted as "public disclosures" which barred Karen Wilson from filing a qui tam lawsuit. The holding goes against the decision of the Fourth Circuit, and the recommendation of the U.S. Solicitor General.  The Solicitor General's brief had argued that the purpose of the "public disclosure" is to bar qui tam lawsuits when the federal government already knows about the fraud at issue.  State and local governments should not be able to protect themselves by writing their own report about their local fraud, put it in the file cabinet, and never tell the federal government about it. Noting that the False Claims Act (FCA) says "administrative" and not "federal administrative," the Supreme Court majority disagreed.  It is another example of Congress promoting whistleblower lawsuits, only to have the Supreme Court limit the advances as much as they can.  In this round of cat and mouse, though, Congress has the last word. This blog reported last week on the whistleblower provisions of the newly signed Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The Senate included in this law, on pages 2082 and 2083, a correction to the FCA. Now the FCA recognizes a public disclosure only if it is from a "Federal criminal, civil or administrative hearing in which the Government or its agent is a party . . .." Also, if the federal government objects to dismissal, then no public disclosure would bar the qui tam lawsuit.

Poor Karen Wilson.  First the Supreme Court took away her retaliation claim by denying her the benefit of the FCA's six-hear statute of limitations.  Graham County Soil & Water Conservation Dist. v. United States ex rel. Wilson, 545 U. S. 409 (2005). By looking to the FCA too literally, and ignoring the law's purpose and effect, the Supreme Court has today allowed fraud-committing local officials to insulate themselves with their own self-serving "audits." Karen Wilson has suffered too much, and our legal system has failed her and the cause of public accountability. On remand, the lower court will now have to decide if Karen Wilson qualifies as an "original source."

Now, I must blow the whistle on myself. Last year when the Supreme Court accepted this case, I predicted here that Graham County did not have the same grounds for optimism as it did in its first trip up. I was wrong.  I failed to appreciate the Supreme Court's enduring hostility to the FCA, even in the face of the official U.S. government request to appreciate the need for citizen lawsuits against fraud. Thankfully, whistleblower supporters in the U.S. Senate saw the handwriting on the wall and fixed this law even before the Supreme Court announced today's decision.

Graham County, North Carolina, goes to the Supreme Court, again

Bookmark and Share


Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review a decision against the Graham County (North Carolina) Soil & Water Conservation District for the second time. In its first trip, the District persuaded the Supreme Court that whistleblower Karen Wilson had to follow North Carolina's three-year statute of limitations for her retaliation claims, and could not rely on the six-year time limit in the federal False Claims Act (FCA).  Graham County Soil & Water Conservation Dist. v. United States ex rel. Wilson, 545 U.S. 409 (2005). Now, the District is trying to evade liability altogether by asking the Supreme Court to say that state and local administrative proceedings bar whistleblowers from bringing fraud actions on behalf of the federal government.

 Graham County should not feel so confident on this trip to the Supreme Court.  Here, the Supreme Court asked the United States Solicitor General (SG) to submit a position statement on whether the federal government wanted the Court to hear this case.  On May 20, 2009, the SG did just that.  She expressed the government's desire that the Court accept the case for the purpose of affirming the decision against Graham County.  The SG, Elena Kagan, explained to the Court how administrative decisions of state and local governments may not get the attention of the federal government such that it would take action against fraudulent use of taxpayer moneys.

Graham County began cooking its own troubles when it decided to use federal Emergency Watershed Protection Program money to give one of its own employees a no-bid contract.  The County District's secretary, Karen Wilson, raised concerns about this abuse to her own supervisors and other county officials.  Unsatisfied with the response, she reported the abuse to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.  She met with agents of USDA's Inspector General. Within a year and a half, the culprits had hounded Wilson out of her job. Later, she filed a sealed "qui tam" lawsuit on behalf of the federal government to recover the misspent funds for our national treasury. The government declined to intervene, and Karen Wilson's own lawyers pursued the case.

The federal district judge in North Carolina first dismissed Wilson's retaliation case, saying that she missed North Carolina's three-year time limit for retaliation claims.  Wilson appealed that, and the Fourth Circuit reversed, holding that the FCA's six-year time limit applies.  Graham County appealed to the Supreme Court and won its first case there, in a set-back for whistleblowers everywhere.

Now, the federal judge in North Carolina has dismissed the main case, holding that since Graham County and a state agency had investigated, and since its reports were technically public records, that counted as a public disclosure that barred Wilson from suing on behalf of the federal government.  Again, the Fourth Circuit reversed.  The Court said that the word "administrative" in the FCA applies only to administrative proceedings of the federal government.  Courts in the Ninth and Eleventh Circuits had held otherwise.

That the SG asked the Court to take the case is a traditional factor influencing the Supreme Court's decision.  Here, the SG specifically indicated that on the merits, the federal government would ask the Supreme Court to affirm the Fourth Circuit's position that only federal administrative proceedings would prevent whistleblowers from suing on behalf of the federal government.  The SG noted how ironic it would be for the perpetrators of the fraud to realize that they could insulate themselves from liability by making their own report against themselves. Karen Wilson could well have used a Supreme Court decision to just let the Fourth Circuit decision stand.  Certainly, the Supreme Court could have picked better cases if it wanted to help those whistleblowers who risk their careers to help the taxpayers recover ill-gotten gains. Hopefully, this time the Supreme Court will side with her and affirm the Fourth Circuit decision. We may not find out for another full year.