Part Two of World Online Lawyers with Excellent Practice’s Interview with Pamela Coyle Brecht Released

2023/06/06

Pietragallo partner Pamela Coyle Brecht sat down with World Online Lawyers with Excellent Practice (WOLEP) for their interview series “WOLEP Talks” which features distinguished lawyers from across the globe. This is part two of Ms. Brecht’s interview, with part one available here. In the second installment, Ms. Brecht discusses the Federal False Claims Act abroad, stating the Act is not limited to American citizens or conduct occurring in America. She shares that her process for litigating these cases involves travelling to where the conduct occurred, to gain context for the matter. Later in the discussion, she talks about her success as a woman in health care law, and her passion for using her skillset to face new challenges and help people. She attributes this success to giving 110% to everything she does and having the right mentor, which she strives to be for young lawyers. To read part two of Ms. Brecht’s interview, click here. Read More

Laboratory Fraud: What Was Old is New Again

2023/06/05

Nearly every American has received some type of laboratory testing, many regularly. Lab tests are at the base of the healthcare pyramid. That fact, as well as how easily new tests are brought to consumers, may explain why laboratory fraud persists. Blood testing almost always requires a healthcare provider’s order. The interdependence between the healthcare provider, the testing, and the laboratory has often caused criminal, civil, and compliance problems. This article will discuss the pervasiveness of fraud in the behemoth laboratory industry from the 1990s to the present, as well as the False Claims Act (FCA) jurisprudence developed through the joint efforts of the government and whistleblowers to rein in new and old lab fraud schemes. Due to a series of innovative whistleblower cases, “Operation LabScam” was launched in the 1990s. The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and multiple U.S. Attorney’s Offices throughout the country settled some of the largest laboratory fraud cases at the time. For example, the DOJ entered into settlements with Laboratory Corporation of America Inc. (Labcorp), for $187 million, Damon Clinical Laboratories Inc. for $119 million, and National Health Laboratories for $111 million. One of the largest FCA recoveries in a lab case at the time was United States ex rel. Robert J. Merena v. SmithKline Beecham Corporation resulted in a then-ground-breaking recovery of $325 million.[1] In Operation LabScam, the FCA served as an effective tool for exposing overbilling lab schemes. In the wake of these sizeable recoveries, the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services Office of Inspector General (OIG) issued robust guidance on how labs should interact with healthcare providers in a position to refer patients for testing in 1997 and 1998.[2] Additionally, the industry also published articles and held seminars providing compliance guidance. OIG, the lab industry, and other industry stakeholders believed this well-published compliance framework would curb future laboratory fraud. Read More

Supreme Court Leaves Open a Major Risk to Internal Corporate Communications

2023/06/05

It is commonplace for attorneys and compliance officers (particularly those who are also attorneys) to receive communications from clients that have more than one purpose. Take, for example, a doctor who calls a friend and the hospital’s compliance officer to set up a dinner for their families. During that call, the doctor mentions that he is thinking about starting his own practice and asks the compliance officer if he believes it is a good idea. Later in the conversation, the doctor mentions to the compliance officer that one of her colleagues has a habit of looking into the records of other physicians’ patients, and the doctor says she finds this “creepy.” The doctor asks the compliance officer if he is obligated to report the colleague for a potential HIPAA violation. While you might assume the attorney–client privilege protects this conversation between the doctor and compliance officer/attorney, that assumption can easily be wrong. This hypothetical situation raises the issue of “dual-purpose communications,” which are communications between a lawyer and client that have both legal and nonlegal purposes. Dual-purpose communications occur routinely in businesses across the country, particularly in highly regulated areas such as healthcare compliance. Recent decisions by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and the United States Supreme Court have drawn into question how courts will determine whether dual-purpose communications are protected by the attorney–client privilege. Courts have historically used one of two tests to analyze whether dual-purpose communications should be protected by the attorney–client privilege. First, under “the primary purpose” test, courts look at whether the primary purpose of the communication is to give or receive legal advice, as opposed to business or tax advice. Second, the broader “a primary purpose” or “substantial purpose” test courts look at whether one primary purpose of the communication is to give or receive legal advice. Read More

Could One Plaintiff’s Phone Call Lead to ADA Litigation? The Supreme Court Will Decide

2023/05/22

Every business or nonprofit open to the public, regardless of size, must comply with Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). The ADA permits a plaintiff to sue a business for failing to provide full and equal access to goods, services, and facilities. The ADA’s aim is laudable; however, plaintiff attorneys have begun exploiting its breadth. Plaintiff attorneys are bringing claims against businesses of all sizes on behalf of plaintiffs who may never actually intend to use the defendant’s goods, services, or facilities. These lawsuits may include allegations that a website is inaccessible to the visually impaired or that hotel beds are too high for the mobility impaired. A single law firm may file dozens of nearly identical cases, using the same plaintiff, against similarly situated businesses in a short period of time. This type of ADA litigation has become an epidemic in certain parts of the country, including in the Western District of Pennsylvania. Every business is threatened by it. The proliferation of these cases has raised basic but consequential questions of “standing,” the capacity of a particular party to bring suit. Courts, counsel, and businesses alike are asking – are a plaintiff’s “informational injuries” enough to expose businesses to suit under the ADA? May plaintiffs sue because they learn of a potential ADA violation – such as by visiting a website or calling a hotel’s front desk – or must they personally suffer a concrete injury arising from the noncompliance? The U.S. Supreme Court is stepping in to answer. During the 2023-2024 term, the Court will hear the case of Acheson Hotels v. Laufer. The plaintiff, Deborah Laufer, sued Acheson Hotels LLC for failing to sufficiently provide information on its website about accessible hotel rooms, despite no indication that Ms. Laufer intended to patronize the hotel. Ms. Read More

16 Pietragallo Lawyers Named in 2023 Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

2023/05/19

Pietragallo is pleased to announce that 16 lawyers have been named to the 2023 Pennsylvania Super Lawyers and Rising Stars list. Super Lawyers is a service of Thomson Reuters legal division which compiles a list of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas. Each year, a research team at Super Lawyers conducts a multi-phase selection process reviewing independent research, peer nominations, and peer evaluations.  Five percent of lawyers are selected to Super Lawyers and two and a half percent to Rising Stars. The following were recognized in the 2023 Pennsylvania Super Lawyers list: Gaetan J. Alfano Joseph J. Bosick Mark Gordon Brennan Hart Christopher A. Iacono Michael A. Morse William Pietragallo, II Francis E. Pipak, Jr Marc S. Raspanti (Top 100 in Pennsylvania and Top 100 in Philadelphia) Douglas K. Rosenblum Clem C. Trischler Paul K. Vey The following were recognized in the 2023 Pennsylvania Rising Stars list: Ashley Kenny John Kettering Alexander M. Owens Peter St. Tienne Wolff To read more, click here. About Pietragallo Pietragallo Gordon Alfano Bosick & Raspanti, LLP is a multi-disciplined business and commercial litigation firm headquartered in Pittsburgh with six offices throughout Pennsylvania, Florida, Ohio, and West Virginia from which we are able to serve our clients in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.   Read More

Marc Stephen Raspanti appointed to Law360’s 2023 Health Care Editorial Advisory Board

2023/05/09

Pietragallo partner and founder of the firm’s national Qui Tam & False Claims Act practice group, Marc Stephen Raspanti, has been appointed to sit on Law360’s 2023 Health Care Editorial Advisory Board. The editorial advisory board provides feedback on Law360’s coverage and expert insight on how best to shape future coverage. The board is made up of 13 attorneys each with their own unique and accomplished background in healthcare law. Mr. Raspanti brings his experience as a seasoned litigator and avid writer in the healthcare field to this board. To see the full list of board members, click here. Read More

Michael Morse to speak at the 33rd Annual National Institute on Health Care Fraud

2023/05/05

Pietragallo partner Michael Morse will be speaking at the American Bar Association’s 33rd Annual National Institute on Health Care Fraud on May 3-5, 2023 in Chicago, IL. Mr. Morse will be speaking on “Enforcement and Private Equity” with fellow speakers Kirk Ogrosky, partner at Goodwin Procter, LLP and Kevin Lownds, Deputy Chief in the Office of Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell, Medicaid Fraud Division. Their panel will focus on health care fraud enforcement actions against private equity organizations. This two-and-a-half-day event will offer over 13 hours of CLE credit to attendees. Further information and registration can be found here. Read More

Marc Stephen Raspanti to speak at the Federal Bar Association’s “False Claims Act Today”

2023/05/17

Pietragallo partner Marc Stephen Raspanti, seasoned litigator and founder of Pietragallo’s Qui Tam & False Claims Act practice group, will be a speaker for the Federal Bar Association’s “False Claims Act Today” discussion focusing on the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The event will be held virtually on Wednesday, May 17, 2023 at noon and offers free registration. The panel will feature a Senior Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, a federal judge, and counsel who will provide both relator and defendant insights on this unique practice area. Interested? Click here for more information. Read More

Let the Record Reflect, There Are No “Usual Stipulations”

2023/02/23

By The Legal Intelligencer’s The Young Lawyer Editorial Board Let’s set the record straight. There are no “usual stipulations” that apply to depositions. Although some attorneys may share a vague understanding about the usual stipulations, the phrase has no established meaning. In fact, there is no rule, case, or statute that defines the usual stipulations. “Everyone purports to know without asking the content of the ‘usual stipulations’ until a dispute arises; the ephemeral nature of the parties’ understanding is then quite apparent.” See United States v. Liquid Sugars, 158 F.R.D. 466, 473 n.8 (E.D. Cal. 1994). Because the phrase has no accepted meaning, an attorney should respond to a proposal for the usual stipulations by asking, “What do you mean by the usual stipulations?” The question might elicit shock, anger, or some patronizing retort like, “I’m surprised you don’t know what the usual stipulations are.” You may feel tempted to agree to the usual stipulations without any clarification. This is especially true for newer lawyers, who fear that asking for an explanation will reveal their inexperience. But there is no reason to be embarrassed. In all likelihood, the attorney proposing the usual stipulations has no idea what the phrase means. Many attorneys simply mimic what they perceive to be a common practice without questioning whether the practice makes sense. These same attorneys might argue, “I’ve done hundreds of depositions, and no one has ever refused the usual stipulations.” That may be true, but a prevalent practice can still be a flawed practice. Consider these two common versions of the usual stipulations: “reserving all objections until trial or there is an attempt to use the deposition” or “reserving all objections except to the form of a question.” While neither helps the taking attorney, both give the defending attorney a strategic advantage beyond what the rules provide. Read More

Marc Raspanti and Pamela Coyle Brecht to speak at Italian Seminar held by Gitti and Partners

2023/02/08

Pietragallo partners Marc Raspanti and Pamela Coyle Brecht are presenting with Italian law firm Gitti and Partners for a seminar entitled “Guida pratica alla normativa sul whistleblowing” or “The New Italian Whistleblowing Legislation: A Practical Guide”.  This webinar will take place on Wednesday, February 8, 2023 at 12:00pm EST and 6:00pm in Italy. Marc and Pam will present on American whistleblowing laws and how they compare to the new proposed Italian laws. Marc is a published author on the differences and similarities of the Italian and U.S. whistleblowing legislation. While the rest of the seminar will be held in Italian, Marc and Pam will share their expertise in English. Further information and registration can be found here: https://www.grplex.com/it/convegni/download/1105/guida-pratica-alla-normativa-sul-whistleblowing Read More