Posted on March 6, 2007 in Case Analysis
Written by: David B. Honig
In an interesting case, a whistleblower stipulated to the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, in effect agreeing that the Court could dismiss his False Claims Act case against a hospital as unsupported by the facts. In U.S. ex rel. Camillo v. Kenneth Hall Regional Hospital, a case set in East St. Louis, the whistleblower agreed with the Hospital’s Motion arguing that, even assuming every fact the whistleblower could argue, the case had to be dismissed. The interesting part of the case was that the hospital settled the whistleblower’s separate retaliation claim. The government, which wanted to object to the stipulation and settlement, claiming it was a way of shifting money to the whistleblower, was left out in the cold when the Court granted the newly-uncontested Summary Judgment motion. The False Claims Act case was dismissed by the Court, rather than settled by the parties, leaving the government without a basis to object. The Government filed a Notice of Appeal, but soon gave up and dismissed the appeal without even filing its initial brief.
For more information, please contact David B. Honig at email@example.com or (317) 977-1447.