Whistleblower Lawsuits In Massachusetts
How the law works in Massachusetts
The False Claims Act allows people in Massachusetts to file “qui tam” or more commonly known as a Federal whistleblower lawsuit against individuals or companies that have directly or indirectly defrauded the federal government whether in Massachusetts or not. Through qui tam or federal whistleblower lawsuits, Massachusetts whistleblowers may recover the government’s losses on the government’s behalf. Tax fraud cases including Massachusetts tax fraud cases are handled differently. For more information about rewards for whistleblowers in Massachusetts in cases involving federal tax fraud or tax underpayments, see information about the new IRS whistleblower law .
Many people who file qui tam or federal whistleblower lawsuits (called the “relators”) are employees or former employees of companies that commit fraud. But anyone who knows of an instance where the government has paid false claims can file a qui tam or whistleblower lawsuit. That could be, for example, a competitor, a customer, a subcontractor or even a patient.
Massachusetts False Claims Act or Qui Tam Whistleblower cases and procedures are usually quite unique, and a very specialized knowledge of the law can be very helpful in getting a successful outcome for a qui tam lawsuit.
The relator in Massachusetts files the lawsuit in federal court "under seal,” meaning it is not available to the public and cannot be discussed with anyone except the government officials investigating the case. Even the defendants -- the individual or organization charged with committing fraud -- are not told about the lawsuit. This gives the government time to investigate the fraud allegations without alerting the defendant. The seal initially lasts for 60 days. But seals on qui tam or whistleblower lawsuit cases can be routinely extended for one or two years or even longer while the government investigates.
At the end of the sealed investigative period in Massachusetts, the government decides whether to join, or intervene, in the qui tam lawsuit. If the government joins the case, the litigation is conducted jointly by the government and the whistleblower’s attorney in Massachusetts Federal court, with the government as lead counsel. If the government declines to intervene, the relator in Massachusetts may go forward with the lawsuit and assumes primary responsibility for running the case.
The timing of a lawsuit in Massachusetts can be critical. The first person to file a case in Massachusetts under the False Claims Act for a particular fraud in Massachusetts preempts all other cases. So if you plan to bring a case in Massachusetts, it is important to do so before another whistleblower in Massachusetts beats you to the courthouse. Potential whistleblowers in Massachusetts also should keep in mind that the False Claims Act has a statute of limitations that may be as short as six years.
Damages and fines in Massachusetts
The law stipulates that a liable defendant pay three times the government’s losses plus a fine for each false claim. When settling a case in Massachusetts, the government often agrees to forego the civil penalties and accepts two to three times the amount of damages suffered by the government. The defendant also must pay the fees and the case-related expenses of the whistleblower’s attorney in Massachusetts.
Massachusetts Whistleblower’s reward
Under the False Claims Act, whistleblowers in Massachusetts are entitled to 15 percent to 30 percent of whatever amount the government recovers as a result of their qui tam or Massachusetts whistleblower lawsuits. The amount varies, depending on whether the government intervened in the Massachusetts qui tam case and other factors.
Congress decided to give whistleblowers in all states including Massachusetts a share of the recoveries that result from qui tam or federal whistleblower lawsuits filed in Massachusetts can serve to give most people a very strong incentive required to step forward and take both the personal and professional risks involved in reporting fraud. It also wanted to encourage private law firms to risk their resources in litigating cases on the public’s behalf.