Whistleblower Beats Feds And Wins $1.6M Award
2 CommentsBy Ed Silverman // December 14th, 2007 // 11:55 pm
Jim Marchese has won his battle with the federal government. The former Cell Therapeutics sales rep was seeking a share of a $10.5 million fine his former employer paid earlier this year for fraudulently marketing a cancer drug and bilking Medicare out of millions of dollars. As a whistleblower, he was entitled to anywhere from 15 percent to 25 percent. But the federal government recently turned around and accused him of masterminding a complex off-label scheme and argued Marchese didn’t deserve a dime. The US Attorney in Seattle also claimed Marchese destroyed or failed to turn over evidence when he first blew the whistle on CTI. Marchese denied it all.
Today, though, US federal judge Marsha Pechman issued a 14-page ruling (this is it) in which she decided that Marchese is, indeed, entitled to a share of the proceeds, because he played a significant role in the government’s case and didn’t engineer the fraud. However, the judge also found that Marchese did play a role in the fraud and didn’t immediately report the episode, and so he gets only 15 percent. “Marchese provided the government with evidence of fraudulent activity that the government would not otherwise have discovered. The government acted on this information by bringing a complaint against CTI involving three separate schemes…,” she writes.
“Marchese repeatedly consulted with the government on the details of the government’s case and led the government to discover the bulk of the fraudulently reimbursed Medicare claims…Marchese also aided the government’s mediation with CTI, providing the government with strategies to overcome CTI’s defensive arguments…The Court balances Mr. Marchese’s contributions to the government’s case against his participation in (one) fraud. The Court concludes that Mr. Marchese’s initial interpretation of the statute governing Medicare reimbursement was honest, albeit flawed…
“Marchese has failed to convince the Court that he acted swiftly and efficiently in bringing the case against CTI after he discovered CTI’s illegal promotion of off-label indications…. (However), the Court does not find that Mr. Marchese was the planner and initiator of a scheme to deceive physicians. Because Mr. Marchese did not plan or initiate the scheme, his share of the CTI settlement cannot be reduced below fifteen percent.”
Ricardo
WOW!!!
Deal or No Deal!
What a deal!!
RB
Dan
Whistleblowing, I imagine, is a very difficult process. Especially when one is performing such an act with little or any legal knowlege or knowledge of pharmaceutical regulations at least initially, as well as such a person not being very marketable aferwards with thier background for future employment endeavors after such trauma of filing a whistleblower case for possibly many reasons. So the completion of such a case clearly requires a large amount of effort and persistence, as such cases typically last years in court. This is possibly due to the pathologically intimate relationship betweeen our governent and such corporations which may facilitate such a delay. So I admire any whistleblower, regardless of the industry, for the courage to speak out to expose wrongdong that may harm others. Then, as a reward for this, they have been known to have aspects of thier lives destroyed and this is why I have such admiration for whistleblowers. If accusations presented against a corporation are determined to be valid, a settlement is usually reached, combined with a deferred prosecution agreement, which, I uncerstand means that the accused corporation is effectively exonerated from the accusations and consequently can deny any wrongdoing performed by thier corporation. Yet, this is not a deterrent from performing similiar criminal acts in the future. This process just allows for others to be quiet.
Usually, business is conducted by such corporations afterwards with little change to thier procedures. This is why some companies fork out several settlements over a certain period, because they may consider such settlements as a cost of doing whatever business they wish to do.
If I rob a bank and get arrested for this act, I go to jail immediately and am prosecuted rather immediately as well. It’s impossible for me as an individual to acquire such an agreement corporations are entitled to in cases such as what was illustrated above. “Yeah officer, I know I was drunk while driving, but how about some cash and you can defer arresting me.” That’s not the case. I’m immediately penalized to inhibit me from committing such acts in the future. What a concept, huh?