1 U.S. OFFICE OF SPECIAL COUNSEL 1730 M Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C The Special Counsel The White House Washington, D.C Re: OSC File No. DI Dear Mr. President: Pursuant to my duties as Special Counsel, enclosed please find the Social Security Administration's (SSA) investigative report, based on disclosures of wrongdoing at the SSA's Office of Disability Adjudication and Review (ODAR) made to the Office of Special Counsel (OSC). OSC has reviewed the report and, in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 1213(e), provides the following summary ofthe allegations and our findings. The whistleblower, Judge Christine P. Benagh, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) (now retired), assigned to ODAR's Washington, D.C. Hearing Office at the time of the disclosure, alleged that ODAR managers engaged in a violation of law, rule, or regulation, gross mismanagement, and a gross waste of funds by enabling claimants' attorneys to overcharge or improperly bill SSA for their services. Judge Benagh consented to the release of her name. The agency's investigation substantiated Judge Benagh's allegations that in two cases, a law firm representing a claimant submitted forms with signatures of attorneys who did not actually sign the forms and no longer worked for the firm. The investigation did not substantiate Judge Benagh's disclosures that SSA officials: reviewed ALJ decisions denying fee increase petitions filed by claimants' attorneys in violation of 42 U.S.C. 406(a)(3); extended a 15-day deadline for review of fee increase petitions filed by claimants' attorneys by regulations and internal agency manuals, in violation of 42 U.S.C. 406(a)(3)(A); or allowed claimants' attorneys to double-bill for work already conducted or to bill SSA for excessive fees. The agency determined that procedures are currently in place to address individual instances of wrongdoing by attorneys and representatives, and that corrective action was unnecessary. I have determined that the agency report contains all of the information required by statute and that the findings appear to be reasonable. Nevertheless, report's findings suggest that there may be a high potential for abuse and therefore
2 November 25,2014 Page 2 of8 the agency should take steps to prevent and reduce fraud, waste, and abuse in processing Social Security claims. Judge Benagh's allegations were referred to then-commissioner Michael J. Astrue to conduct an investigation pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 1213(c) and (d). On July 19, 2013, Acting Commissioner Carolyn Colvin submitted the agency's report to OSC based on an investigation conducted by the SSA Office of Inspector General (OIG). Judge Benagh declined to provide comments on the July 19, 2013 report. As required by 5 U.S.C. 1213(e)(3), I am now transmitting the report to you. 1 I. Judge Benagh's Disclosures In brief, Judge Benagh alleged that SSA management officials: Reviewed ALJ decisions denying fee increase petitions filed by claimants' attorneys in violation of 42 U.S.C. 406(a)(3); Extended a 15-day deadline for review of fee increase petitions filed by claimants' attorneys by implementing regulations and internal agency manuals that violate 42 U.S.C. 406(a)(3)(A); and Allowed claimants' attorneys to double-bill for work already conducted, bill SSA for excessive fees, and accept materially false claims and fee increase petitions from claimant's attorneys. Judge Benagh provided multiple examples, cited several cases, and provided supporting documentation in support of her claims. A. Review of ALJ Decisions Denying Fee Increase Petitions Contrary to Statute Judge Benagh asserted that the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. 406(a)(3), establishes two procedures for the review of petitions to increase or decrease fees for a claimant's representative. If the petition for review is filed by a claimant or a claimant's 1 The Office of Special Counsel (OSC) is authorized by law to determine whether a disclosure should be referred to the involved agency for investigation or review, and a report OSC may refer allegations of violations of law, rule, or regulation, gross mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, an abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety. 5 U.S.C. 1213(a) and (b). Disclosures must include information that aids OSC in making its determination. Disclosures must include information sufficient for OSC to determine whether referral is warranted. OSC does not have the authority to investigate disclosures and therefore, does not conduct its own investigations. Rather, if the Special Counsel determines that there is a substantial likelihood that one of the aforementioned conditions exists, she is required to advise the appropriate agency head of her determination, and the agency head is required to conduct an investigation of the allegations and submit a written report. 5 U.S.C. 1213(c). Upon receipt, the Special Counsel reviews the agency report to determine whether it contains all of the information required by statute and that the findings of the head of the agency appear to be reasonable. 5 U.S. C. 1213(e)(2). The Special Counsel will determine that the agency's investigative findings and conclusions appear reasonable if they are credible, consistent, and complete based upon the facts in the disclosure, the agency report, and the comments offered by the whistleblower under 5 U.S.C. 1213(e)(l).
3 November 25,2014 Page 3 of8 representative, the ALJ who hears the underlying disability claim is tasked with the review, unless that ALJ is unavailable. According to Judge Benagh, if the fee increase petition is filed by an ALJ, the Commissioner of Social Security or his designate reviews it. Additionally, she maintained that in either case, the statute provides that "the decision of the [ALJ] or other person conducting the review shall not be subject to further review." 42 U.S.C. 406(a)(3)(C). Contrary to 406, Judge Benagh estimated that her decisions in such reviews have been subjected to further review in an average of six cases per year since For example, in one case, Judge Benagh received a petition from a claimant's attorney for a fee increase and denied the petition in May 2008, based on her understanding of 406(a)(3)(B)(i), after finding the firm had overbilled the claimant and submitted materially false and misleading statements. 2 Judge Benagh stated that her decision was overruled by then-regional Chief Administrative Law Judge (RCALJ) Frank Cristaudo. B. Extension of Filing Deadlines for Fee Increase Petitions Contrary to Statute Judge Benagh's understanding was that 42 U.S.C. 406(a)(3)(A) requires that petitions for an increase in fees (fee petitions) must be filed within 15 days of receiving a notice of award of a claimant's benefits and authorization of the fee payment. Judge Benagh stated that SSA promulgated regulations that extended the statutory 15-day deadline for claimants' attorneys to file fee increase petitions after a decision on the merits of the claim, without a legal basis to do so. Afee agreement is a written statement signed by the claimant and his or her appointed representative specifying the fee the representative expects to charge and collect, and the claimant expects to pay, for services the representative provides in pursuing the claimant's benefit rights in proceedings before the SSA. 3 A fee agreement is submitted before the date of the first favorable decision. A fee petition is filed if the representative does not submit a fee agreement by the required date, or if SSA does not approve the agreement or it is not approved on administrative review. Judge Benagh maintained that multiple, inconsistent deadlines in the regulations and SSA manual are in conflict with the 15-day statutory time period for requesting review of a fee petition. C. Improper Allowance of Fee Petitions Evidencing Excessive Billing, and Materially False Submissions by Claimants' Attorneys Judge Benagh alleged that lawyers who appeared before her filed excessive and often materially false petitions for" fee increases contrary to 42 U.S.C. 406(a)(l), which SSA has taken no action to address. Section 408(a) imposes criminal penalties upon any 2 The allegedly false statements included the attorney's failure to disclose to Judge Benagh that he had already been paid for approximately two years of work that he had included in his new fee petition, and an entry in his fee petition regarding an on-the-record decision. These allegedly false statements are also addressed in Section C below. 3 agreements.htm#ao=o, last accessed
4 Page 4 of8 person who makes false statements or a false representation of material fact in connection with any payments made under the Social Security Act, or who conceals or fails to disclose material information with the intent to fraudulently secure unauthorized or excessive payments. Judge Benagh asserted that many of the petitions she received contained materially false submissions from claimants' representatives and that SSA took no action to prevent such filings or discipline the attorneys who made them. Specifically, Judge Benagh disclosed that SSA allowed claimants' attorneys to double-bill claimants for work already conducted and excessively bill for initial case reviews, clerical expenses, and travel expenses, often failing to provide adequate itemized statements of costs. Judge Benagh alleged that a law firm representing a claimant used signatures of attorneys no longer working for the firm on claim documents, and submitted inflated claims ofhours worked, including $6,000 for 32 hours of work performed by clerical employees. Each attorney in the case also billed 3.5 hours of travel time, a charge that should have been apportioned among all the claimants whom the attorneys represented before SSA ALJs that day. After she attempted to take action on the excessive fee petition by holding an evidentiary hearing, Judge Benagh was instructed that she was not permitted to hold a hearing on this fee increase petition, as such a hearing would be contrary to Region III policy and could strain agency resources. In one case, an attorney submitted a fee increase petition that Judge Benagh alleged contained a false entry for a specific task. She believed that the work claimed had not been performed, based on the evidence in the case file. The petition also contained an excessive claim of hours worked. Judge Benagh stated that she was admonished by the agency in this and other cases not only for applying a filing deadline, but also for removing double-billed charges, reducing fees for clerical work, and for criticizing attorneys. In another example, an attorney elicited what Judge Benagh believed to be perjured testimony from a witness, withheld evidence, and filed false evidence about a claimant's disability. The attorney had taken testimony from her client under oath that there had never been a functional capacity evaluation in her case. Judge Benagh, however, subpoenaed records from the claimant's private disability carrier, which included a functional capacity evaluation. The records ofthe carrier's private investigator also contradicted the findings of the evaluation, and showed that the carrier was taking action to cut off disability benefits to the claimant. To Judge Benagh's knowledge, the attorney was not sanctioned by SSA. Judge Benagh also received a formal reprimand for finding that these attempts to withhold documents weighed against the credibility of the claimant. As such, she asserts that SSA failed to address the impact of possible misconduct by claimants' attorneys on the validity of claims. In addition, she believes
5 November 25,2014 Page 5 of8 that the agency's positions have resulted in most judges "rubber-stamping" fee petitions, encouraging multiple abuses. II. The Agency's Report The OIG's investigation did not substantiate the majority of Judge Benagh's disclosures; however, the OIG confirmed that in two cases she cited, fee petitions were signed by someone other than the attorney whose signature appeared on the document. With respect to Judge Benagh's allegation that an ALJ's decisions on fee petitions are not subject to further review pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 406(a)(3), the agency report determined that her disclosures resulted from a misinterpretation of the Act. The OIG conducted multiple interviews with SSA legal experts who clarified the difference between fee petitions and fee agreements and their respective and distinct statutory and regulatory frameworks. The report explains that there is a strong record of legislative and regulatory differentiation of fee petitions and fee agreements Judge Benagh did not fully understand. The statutory provisions Judge Benagh cited regarding fee petitions actually apply to fee agreements. According to Robert Melvin, an attorney and expert in SSA statutes and regulations, the fee petition process is described in various sections of 20 C.F.R et seq. The purpose of such regulations is to "create a fee petition process that a representative would use to obtain approval of the fee he or she charged the claimant." The underlying statutory authority for the fee petition regulations can be found in 42 U.S.C. 406(a)(1). Conversely, the fee agreement process is outlined in 406(a)(2) and (3) only; there are no regulations covering fee agreements. Additionally, 406(a)(3) establishes two procedures for the review of fee agreements to increase or decrease fees for a claimant's representative. SSA stated that the vast majority (99.6%) of fee requests surveyed between FY 2010 and May 13, 2013, were fee agreements, as opposed to fee petitions. Thus, Judge Benagh's assertion that her decisions either on fee petitions or fee agreements were not reviewable was erroneous. The OIG report specifically addressed Judge Benagh's allegation that her decisions in fee petition reviews were subject to further review contrary to statute in an average of six cases per year. First, OIG stated that reviews of fee petitions are expressly allowable by 20 C.F.R (d), which states, "an authorized official ofthe [SSA] who did not take part in the fee determination being questioned will review the determination." OIG also found that there is no law that prohibits further review. Further, the statute Judge Benagh cited in support of her allegation, 42 U.S.C. 406(a)(3), establishes two procedures for the review of fee agreements, not fee petitions. Moreover, the investigation determined that during the ten-year period starting in 2002 there have been only 30 cases from the Washington, D.C. Hearing Office in which a claimant or representative appealed to the RCALJ on afee petition. Of these cases, only five were assigned to Judge Benagh. Additionally, OIG clarified that in one of the cases, Judge
6 Page 6 of8 Benagh's fee increase petition decision was overruled by RCALJ Jasper Bede-not Judge Cristaudo. Judge Benagh also maintained that SSA' s regulations and the Hearings, Appeals and Litigation Law manual (HALLEX) impose a statutory 15-day deadline for filing fee increase petitions after a decision on the merits of the claim. She noted that she was admonished by the agency for applying such a deadline. The investigation determined that the cited 15-day deadline found in 42 U.S.C. 406(a)(3) applies to fee agreements, not fee petitions. As such, there is no 15-day deadline for filing fee increase petitions. The report further clarified that the regulation Judge Benagh alleged was in conflict with the statute, 20 C.F.R (c)( 4), "does not place a time limit on filing petitions for fee increases, it places a 30-day deadline on requesting review of the fee petition determination." The agency's policy, contained in HALLEX I , which Judge Benagh also cited as contradictory to the statue, applies to fee agreements. OIG cited multiple sections ofhallex: I , I , and I , that do apply to fee petitions, but the timeframes listed in the relevant HALLEX provisions are consistent with fee petition regulations at 20 C.P.R (c). Therefore, the agency report found that all the referenced agency rules, regulations and policies are consistent with statutory provisions. According to the report, the multiple deadlines listed in each of the various provisions apply to multiple, mutually exclusive processes. Furthermore, the report noted that there are no statutes or regulations that contain any deadline for filing fee petitions, except that HALLEX I (B) provides that if a claimant wants to be paid directly out of the claimant's past due benefits, a fee petition must be filed within 60 days. With respect to Judge Benagh's allegation that HALLEX is changed at will by SSA, SSA responded that there is a process for making changes to HALLEX, which occurs regularly in order take into account legislative and regulatory changes and other SSA-specific administrative messages and policy changes. Proposed changes are reviewed by the associate commissioner-level components in ODAR, which then provide comments back on the draft. The draft is revised to incorporate comments and suggestions, and a background book is prepared, which is provided to the ODAR deputy commissioner for approval. The procedures for making changes to HALLEX can be found at I With respect to Judge Benagh's allegations that, in specific cases, claimants' attorneys inflated claims of hours worked, the investigation found that the agency had taken appropriate action to reduce the fees sought. For example, in one case, the law firm representing the claimant requested a total of $14, in four fee petitions. The investigation revealed that after Judge Benagh rejected these claims because she deemed that the petitions were late, they went to higher review with Judge Jasper Bede, who only
7 Page 7 of8 authorized a total of$3, As such, SSA maintained that the current process used by SSA to review fee petition requests is effective. Regarding Judge Benagh's allegations of double billing by claimant representatives, the OIG interviewed Judge Cristaudo, who reported that this is an ethical issue and ALJs have the authority to strike questionable hours. Agency officials advised that there are agency policies on billing; however, the OIG report found "There is no policy or statute stating that fees should be split or divided among the claimants represented by the same representative at the hearing on the same day." An SSA official also noted that common ethical considerations govern general billing procedures of claimant representatives. Citing one example, S SA asserted that its process for reviewing fee petitions is effective because upon secondary review the $10,079 requested was revised down to $4,779 to take into account the amount the law firm had already been paid. With respect to Judge Benagh's allegation that in a particular case an attorney elicited perjured testimony from a witness, withheld evidence, and filed false evidence, the OIG report could not substantiate the claims due to lack of documentation. Regarding Judge Benagh's claim of forged fee petitions, SSA officials acknowledged that the two fee petitions she cited were signed by someone other than the named attorney. However, SSA indicated that it recognized that the individuals were no longer employed with the law firm. As a result, it did not pay the fee in one case, and reduced the fee in the other. The OIG interviewed the two individuals whose signatures appeared on fee petitions in the case at issue. Both of the attorneys stated that they did not sign the fee petition forms (SSA Form 1560) even though the fee petitions bore their names. Additionally, the OIG interviewed Judge Bede. The OIG reported that Judge Bede acknowledged that forging signatures by claimant representatives on fee petitions "seems to be happening more often lately." However, Judge Bede explained that if Judge Benagh observed a potential forgery, the appropriate process to follow was to refer the matter to the SSA Office of General Counsel (OGC) for review. The OGC may hold a hearing to disallow the claimant representative from representing clients before SSA if misconduct is found to have occurred. The OIG's report concluded that the forged signatures appeared to be a "technical violation of the policy," and further stated "it is unlikely that anyone intentionally forged the names with intent to defraud." One of the individuals whose signature was used reported that this particular law firm had a preparation team that handled all of the paperwork and the submission of forms to SSA. The interviewee told the OIG that claimants' representatives did not sign the forms most of the time and that attorneys never signed fee petitions. Additionally, the interviewee indicated that the law firm had a fee petition branch that handled all fee petition forms. The SSA stated that Judge Benagh did not report the problem she identified with the signatories in the cited cases, which is why SSA took no action against claimant representatives for potential sanctions.
8 Page 8 of8 ***** I have reviewed the original disclosure and the agency's reports. I have determined that the reports meet all statutory requirements and that the findings of the agency head appear reasonable. Notwithstanding this determination, as noted above, the findings of the report suggest that there is a high potential for abuse and the agency should consider whether additional measures can be implemented to prevent and reduce fraud, waste, and abuse in the processing of social security claims. As required by 5 U.S.C. 1213(e)(3), I have sent copies ofthe unredacted agency report to the Chairmen and Ranking Members of the Senate and House Committees on the Judiciary. I have also filed copies of the redacted agency report in OSC's public file, which is available online at This matter is now closed. Respectfully, Enclosures Carolyn N. Lerner
WHISTLEBLOWER DISCLOSURES: REPORTING ALLEGATIONS OF AGENCY WRONGDOING TO THE OFFICE OF SPECIAL COUNSEL Catherine A. McMullen CHIEF, DISCLOSURE UNIT Karen P. Gorman DEPUTY CHIEF, DISCLOSURE UNIT U.S. OFFICE
The Special Counsel November 20, 2015 The President The White House Washington, D.C. 20500 Re: OSC File No. DI-13-2396_ Dear Mr. President: Pursuant to my duties as Special Counsel, enclosed please find
U.S. OFFICE OF SPECIAL COUNSEL 1730 M Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20036-4505 The Special Counsel The White House Washington, D.C. 20510 Re: OSC File No. DI-14-3321 Dear Mr. President: Pursuant
U.S. OFFICE OF SPECIAL COUNSEL 1730 M Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20036-4505 The Special Counsel February II. 2014 The White House Washington. D.C. 20510 Re: OSC File No. DI-12-1783 Dear Mr.
U.S. OFFICE OF SPECIAL COUNSEL Form OSC-12 (202) 254-3640 / (800) 572-2249 OMB Control No. 3255-0002 Exp. Date: 2/28/14 INFORMATION ABOUT FILING A WHISTLEBLOWER DISCLOSURE WITH THE OFFICE OF SPECIAL COUNSEL
THE FCA INSPECTOR GENERAL: A COMMITMENT TO PUBLIC SERVICE FORWARD I am pleased to introduce the mission and authorities of the Office of Inspector General for the Farm Credit Administration. I hope this
--S.20-- S.20 One Hundred First Congress of the United States of America AT THE FIRST SESSION Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday, the third day of January, one thousand nine hundred and
Howard Shapiro Whistleblower Protection Ombudsman U.S. Department of Labor The Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2012 directs the DOL Inspector General to designate a Whistleblower Protection
SB2730 TESTIMONY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TWENTY-SIXTH LEGISLATURE, 2012 ON THE FOLLOWING MEASURE: S.B. NO. 2730, RELATING TO FALSE CLAIMS TO THE STATE. BEFORE THE: SENATE COMMITTEE ON
Department of Defense DIRECTIVE NUMBER 7050.06 April 17, 2015 IG DoD SUBJECT: Military Whistleblower Protection References: See Enclosure 1 1. PURPOSE. This directive reissues DoD Directive (DoDD) 7050.06
SAN FRANCISCO ADMINISTRATIVE CODE CHAPTER 96: COORDINATION BETWEEN THE POLICE DEPARTMENT AND THE OFFICE OF CITIZEN COMPLAINTS SEC. 96.1. DEFINITIONS. (a) "Chief of Police" shall mean the Chief of the Police
Handling Disagreement with Superiors Decisions and Whistleblowing The mandate of the Office of Inspector General (OIG) is to root out fraud, waste, and abuse, as well as promote the economy and efficiency
Procedure 1910 Responsible Office: Yale Medical Group Effective Date: 01/01/2007 Responsible Department: Administration Last Revision Date: 09/20/2013 Prevention of Fraud, Waste and Abuse Policy Statement...
SENATE BILL 1ST LEGISLATURE - STATE OF NEW MEXICO - FIRST SESSION, INTRODUCED BY Joseph Cervantes 1 ENDORSED BY THE COURTS, CORRECTIONS AND JUSTICE COMMITTEE AN ACT RELATING TO CIVIL ACTIONS; CLARIFYING
CATHOLIC CHARITIES OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF SYRACUSE, NY and TOOMEY RESIDENTIAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICES Compliance Plan False Claims Act & Whistleblower Provisions Purpose/Policy/Procedures Purpose:
Policy and Procedure: Corporate Compliance Topic: False Claims Act and Whistleblower Provisions, Deficit Reduction Act SCOPE OF POLICY This policy applies to all CFS employees, including trainees, volunteers,
AN ACT IN THE COUNCIL OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA To amend the District of Columbia Procurement Practices Act of 1985 to make the District s false claims act consistent with federal law and thereby qualify
False Claims Act CMP212 Colorado Access is committed to a culture of compliance in which its employees, providers, contractors, and consultants are educated and knowledgeable about their role in reporting
MH Policy and Procedure Document Number: MH-COMPLY-001 Document Owner: Corporate Compliance Officer Date Last Author: Corporate Compliance Officer General Description Purpose: To establish written guidelines
Accountability Report Card Summary 2013 Oklahoma Oklahoma has a relatively good state whistleblower law: Scoring 58 out of a possible 100; Ranking 24 th out of 51 (50 states and the District of Columbia).
HERITAGE FARM POLICY AND PROCEDURES Policy: False Claims Act and Whistleblower Provisions Date: October 8, 2013 Rationale: It is Heritage Farm s intent to make sure all claims are submitted in a timely
Policy Revision Dates: 3/01, 4/90 Page 1 6-914 Protection of Employees from Reprisal for A. Purpose To prohibit supervisory personnel from taking adverse personnel action against an employee, or failing
CHAPTER 20. FLORIDA REGISTERED PARALEGAL PROGRAM 20-1. PREAMBLE RULE 20-1.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this chapter is to set forth a definition that must be met in order to use the title paralegal, to establish
SUBJECT: False Claims Act Explanation and Reporting Requirements NUMBER: 1004 CROSS REFERENCE NUMBER: 1823 REG. REF.: 31 U.S.C. 37-29 PURPOSE: POLICY: The purposes of this policy are to describe the Federal
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION AND THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE - CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION REGARDING TITLE VII EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION CHARGES AGAINST
TITLE 11 CHAPTER 2 PART 21 LABOR AND WORKERS COMPENSATION JOB TRAINING WORKFORCE INVESTMENT ACT GRIEVANCE AND COMPLAINT RESOLUTION PROCEDURES 188.8.131.52 ISSUING AGENCY: New Mexico Department of Workforce
This document is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on 07/01/2016 and available online at http://federalregister.gov/a/2016-15620, and on FDsys.gov BILLING CODE: 8070-01-P FEDERAL HOUSING
Title V Preventing Fraud and Abuse Subtitle A- Establishment of New Health and Human Services and Department of Justice Health Care Fraud Positions Sec. 501. Health and Human Services Senior Advisor There
Securities Whistleblower Incentives and Protection 15 USC 78u-6 (As added by P.L. 111-203.) 15 USC 78u-6 78u-6. Securities whistleblower incentives and protection (a) Definitions. In this section the following
Cardinal McCloskey Services Corporate Compliance False Claims Act and Whistleblower Provisions Purpose: Cardinal McCloskey Services is committed to prompt, complete and accurate billing of all services
Introduction On January 1, 2000, California's Whistleblower Protection Act (WPA) (Government Code sections 8547 et seq.) was significantly amended. The Legislature amended this law to strengthen protections
Accountability Report Card Summary 2013 New Mexico New Mexico has a pretty strong state whistleblower law: Scoring 72 out of a possible 100 points; Ranking 4 th out of 51 (50 states and the District of
Central LHIN Governance Manual Title: Whistleblower Policy Policy Number: GP-003 Purpose: Originated: September 25, 2012 Board Approved: September 25, 2012 To set out the LHIN s obligations under the Public
Type: MGI Corporate Policy Number: M 700 Effective Date: June 2014 Supersedes: AP 201, 4/12 Revised: 6/14 EDUCATION ABOUT FALSE CLAIMS RECOVERY I. PURPOSE This policy is intended to ensure compliance with
U.S. OFFICE OF SPECIAL COUNSEL 1730 M Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20036-4505 The Special Counsel The White House Washington, D.C. 20500 Re: OSC File Nos. DI-13-4425 and DI-14-3017 Dear Mr.
1. PURPOSE CHAMPAIGN COUNTY NURSING HOME SUMMARY OF ANTI-FRAUD AND ABUSE POLICIES Champaign County Nursing Home ( CCNH ) has established anti-fraud and abuse policies to prevent fraud, waste, and abuse
Stricken language would be deleted from and underlined language would be added to present law. State of Arkansas 90th General Assembly A Bill Regular Session, 2015 SENATE BILL 830 By: Senator D. Sanders
STATE OF CALIFORNIA BUSINESS, TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY DEPARTMENT OF CORPORATIONS Allied Cash Advance California, LLC dba Allied Cash Advance File # 0- and 0 locations NW th Street, Suite 00 Doral,
SECTION 7 EMPLOYEE RELATIONS 7.06 PUBLIC INTEREST DISCLOSURE AND WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION POLICY AUTHORITY: EXECUTIVE COUNCIL (EC#2015-43.3) ADMINISTRATION: ETHICS AND INTEGRITY COMMISSIONER 1 of 11 1.
POLICY: CATHOLIC CHARITIES OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF SYRACUSE, NY Compliance Plan False Claims Act & Whistleblower Provisions 1/31/08 Catholic Charities of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Syracuse,
Prohibited Personnel Practices Whistleblower Protection Ombudsman SBA Office Of Inspector General Responsibilities of Agency Officials Agency heads and officials with delegated personnel management authority,
Billing Code: 8025-01 SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION 13 CFR Part 121 RIN: 3245-AG59 Advisory Small Business Size Decisions AGENCY: Small Business Administration. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This rule implements
PUBLIC LAW 112 199 NOV. 27, 2012 126 STAT. 1465 Public Law 112 199 112th Congress An Act To amend chapter 23 of title 5, United States Code, to clarify the disclosures of information protected from prohibited
Managed Care Fraud and Abuse Compliance Guidelines I. Introduction The United States spends more than $1 trillion each year on healthcare representing approximately 15 percent of the gross national product.
Privacy Impact Assessment Of the Office of Inspector General Information Technology Infrastructure Systems Program or application name: Office of Inspector General Information Technology Infrastructure
LOUISIANA REVISED STATUTES, TITLE 49 CHAPTER 13-B. DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW PART A. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW 991. Creation of division of administrative law The division of administrative law, hereafter
North Shore LIJ Health System, Inc. POLICY TITLE: Detecting and Preventing Fraud, Waste, Abuse and Misconduct POLICY #: 800.09 System Approval Date: 6/23/14 Site Implementation Date: Prepared by: Office
Page No. 1 of 13 Introduction: The PHI Air Medical, L.L.C. is to be used by employees, contractors and vendors to get a high level understanding of the key regulatory requirements relating to our participation
VILLAGECARE CORPORATE COMPLIANCE POLICY AND PROCEDURE MANUAL SUBJECT: COMPLIANCE WITH FEDERAL AND STATE FALSE CLAIMS LAWS AND DETECTION AND PREVENTION OF FRAUD, WASTE AND ABUSE LAST POLICY REVISION EFFECTIVE
Descriptions of Internships Available in the SEC s Divisions and Offices The SEC hires interns across the country into a variety of jobs. Below are descriptions of the different divisions and offices that
No Fear Act: Notification and Federal Employee Anti-Discrimination and Retaliation Act of 2002 Training Module Prepared by: Naval Office of EEO Complaints Management & Adjudication Agenda Overview of No
Sec. 4-61dd. Whistle-blowing. Disclosure of information to Auditors of Public Accounts. Investigation by Attorney General. Rejection of complaint. Complaints re retaliatory personnel actions. Report to
33 U.S.C. 3729-33 FALSE CLAIMS ACT STATUTORY LANGUAGE 31 U.S.C. 3729. False claims (a) LIABILITY FOR CERTAIN ACTS. (1) IN GENERAL. Subject to paragraph (2), any person who (A) knowingly presents, or causes
NASSAU COUNTY INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY WHISTLEBLOWER POLICY This Policy is adopted pursuant to the provisions of the Public Authorities Accountability Act of 2005 and the Public Authorities Reform
Article 3. Family Law Arbitration Act. 50-41. Purpose; short title. (a) It is the policy of this State to allow, by agreement of all parties, the arbitration of all issues arising from a marital separation
Accountability Report Card Summary 2013 Tennessee Tennessee has one of the strongest state whistleblower laws: Scoring 75 out of a possible 100; Ranking 3 rd out of 51 (50 states and the District of Columbia).
VNSNY CORPORATE DRA Policy TITLE: FEDERAL DEFICIT REDUCTION ACT OF 2005: POLICY REGARDING THE DETECTION & PREVENTION OF FRAUD, WASTE AND ABUSE AND APPLICABLE FEDERAL AND STATE LAWS APPLIES TO: VNSNY ENTITIES
U.S. OFFICE OF SPECIAL COUNSEL 1730 M Street, N.W., Suite 201 Washington, D.C. 20036-4505 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN VETERANS' EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING SERVICE, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
COUNTY OF ORANGE False Claims Act and Whistleblower Provisions Policy and Procedures COUNTY OF ORANGE FALSE CLAIMS ACT AND WHISTLEBLOWER PROVISIONS POLICY AND PROCEDURES I. Purpose. The County of Orange
Alliance for Better Health Care, LLC ORGANIZATIONAL POLICY FALSE CLAIMS ACT AND WHISTLEBLOWER PROVISIONS Page 1 of 5 EFFECTIVE DATE: NUMBER: March 2015 ORIGINATOR: Corporate Compliance Officer CONCURRENCE:
CHAPTER 58 AN ACT establishing an Office of the Medicaid Inspector General, supplementing Title 30 of the Revised Statutes, amending P.L.1999, c.162, and making an appropriation. BE IT ENACTED by the Senate
MONTEFIORE HEALTH SYSTEM ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY AND PROCEDURE SUBJECT: SUMMARY OF FEDERAL AND STATE NUMBER: JC31.1 FALSE CLAIMS LAWS OWNER: DEPARTMENT OF COMPLIANCE EFFECTIVE: REVIEW/REVISED: SUPERCEDES:
Policy Title: Effective Date: 1/30/2008 Supersedes Date: N/A Colorado West HealthCare System Grand Junction, CO CWHS-WIDE POLICY FALSE CLAIMS ACT Responsible Departments: All Departments Administration
Connecticut s Whistleblower Law Staff Briefing Legislative Program Review & Investigations October 1, 2009 Study Focus Process and structure currently in place to handle whistleblower complaints within
Minnesota False Claims Act Minnesota Stat. 15C.01 to 15C.16) 15C.01 DEFINITIONS Subdivision 1. Scope. --For purposes of this chapter, the terms in this section have the meanings given them. Subd. 2. Claim.
INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY OF ARBORICULTURE (ISA) CERTIFICATION PROGRAM ETHICS CASE PROCEDURES INTRODUCTION. The ISA Certification Board develops and promotes high ethical standards for the Certified Arborist
METHODIST HEALTH SYSTEM ADMINISTRATIVE Formulated: 6/19/07 Reviewed: Revised: Effective: 10/30/07 TITLE: DETECTING FRAUD AND ABUSE AND AN OVERVIEW OF THE FEDERAL AND STATE FALSE CLAIMS ACTS PURPOSE: Methodist
0 HealthAlliance of the ~udsoti vallevtm J / YOUR PARTNERS IN HEALTH Policy: Compliance with Applicable Federal and State False Claims Acts Initiated: January 1,2010 Reviewed: Revised: Reference: Responsible
6232 MEDICAID COMPLIANCE POLICY It is the policy of the Board of Education that all school district s practices regarding Medicaid claims for services be in compliance with all applicable federal and state
BILL ANALYSIS Senate Research Center C.S.S.B. 1309 By: Wentworth Jurisprudence 4/5/2007 Committee Report (Substituted) AUTHOR'S / SPONSOR'S STATEMENT OF INTENT C.S.S.B. 1309 gives the State of Texas civil
PURPOSE: To protect the integrity of the Authority by providing a guide for proper conduct of Board members and employees of the Authority, including discipline for violations, and establishing a program
H. R. 4173 466 activities and evaluates the effectiveness of the Ombudsman during the preceding year. The Investor Advocate shall include the reports required under this section in the reports required
SOUTH NASSAU COMMUNITIES HOSPITAL One Healthy Way, Oceanside, NY 11572 POLICY TITLE: Compliance with Applicable Federal and State False Claims Acts POLICY NUMBER: OF-ADM-232 DEPARTMENT: Hospital-wide CROSS-REFERENCE:
BLACK HILLS SPECIAL SERVICES COOPERATIVE'S POLICY TO PROVIDE EDUCATION CONCERNING FALSE CLAIMS LIABILITY, ANTI-RETALIATION PROTECTIONS FOR REPORTING WRONGDOING AND DETECTING AND PREVENTING FRAUD, WASTE
PLEASE NOTE: Legislative Information cannot perform research, provide legal advice, or interpret Maine law. For legal assistance, please contact a qualified attorney. Be it enacted by the People of the
The Ethics Act A Code of Conduct for Public Servants W. Va. Code 6B-1-1 et seq WV Ethics Commission 210 Brooks Street, Ste 300 Charleston WV 25301 (304) 558-0664 fax (304) 558-2169 Toll Free (866-558-0664
Metropolitan Jewish Health System and its Participating Agencies and Programs [MJHS] POLICY PURSUANT TO THE FEDERAL DEFICIT REDUCTION ACT OF 2005: Detection and Prevention of Fraud, Waste, and Abuse and
This information has been prepared for persons who wish to make or have made a complaint to The Lawyer Disciplinary Board about a lawyer. Please read it carefully. It explains the disciplinary procedures
Accountability Report Card Summary 2013 Pennsylvania Pennsylvania has a passable state whistleblower law: Scoring 61 out of a possible 100; Ranking 17 th out of 51 (50 states and the District of Columbia).
UPDATED OIG Guidelines for Evaluating State False Claims Acts Note: These guidelines are effective March 15, 2013, and replace the guidelines effective on August 21, 2006, found at 71 FR 48552. UPDATED
ADMINISTRATIVE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES DISTRIBUTION: MERIDIAN TEAM AND BOARD MEMBERS; ALL DIVISIONS, CONTRACTORS AND AGENTS SUBJECT: COMPLIANCE WITH AWARENESS OF FALSE CLAIMS LIABILITY, ANTI-RETALIATION
Policy and Procedure Title: Applies to: False Claims and Whistleblower Protections All employees, volunteers, students, physicians, vendors and contractors Number: First Created: 1/07 SY-CO-019 Issuing
1 Amendments To The False Claims Act July 7, 2009 2 About this Webcast Need both browser & Webex open Rejoin webcast: Follow link in email Event number: 688 252 507 Event password: Cfca2009 Rejoin call:
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN FACILITIES, SECURITY AND CONTRACTING, THE PERSONNEL SECURITY APPEALS BOARD, AND THE OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL, U.S. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT ON ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
DoD Whistleblower Protection Appropriated Fund Civilians What You Need to Know Department of Defense Inspector General Patrick Gookin DoD Whistleblower Protection Ombudsman Whistleblowerprotectionombudsman@dodig.mil
Battered Women's Legal Advocacy Project, Inc. Filing Complaints Against Judges This technical assistance packet addresses the problem of how and when to file a complaint against a judge. It is meant to
SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA NO. 98-B-2742 IN RE: THOMAS WAHLDER ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS PER CURIAM * This attorney disciplinary proceeding arises from one count of formal charges instituted by
Your consent to our cookies if you continue to use this website.