SALT LAKE CITY (PRWEB) January 26, 2018
A Ninth Circuit panel has reversed a lower court dismissal, allowing
a False Claims Act suit against former Lockheed Martain health care
subsidiary, QTC Medical Services Inc. to proceed (US ex rel. David Vatan
v. QTC Medical Services, Inc., et al Case No. 16-55406).
The unpublished decision came down on Friday, January 12, 2018 in an
appeal from whistleblower and former QTC claims file analyst, Dr. David
Vatan, whose suit was dismissed for failure to state a claim. In the
suit, Vatan alleges that QTC submitted false claims to the United States
Department of Veterans Affairs for evaluating Vietnam War veteran's
symptoms of Agent Orange-related diseases.
A 1991 settlement that is still in effect, stemming from a class
action lawsuit, requires the VA to take certain actions whenever it
recognizes a new disease as linked to Agent Orange exposure. These
actions include reviewing previously denied claims and paying disability
and death benefits to affected veterans or their survivors.
QTC was hired by the VA to review 65,000 files for Agent
Orange-related Parkinson's disease, ischemic heart disease, and hairy
cell leukemia, as well as 95,000 files for peripheral neuropathy. QTC
was to flag files that merited a second review and final decision by the
VA.
The lawsuit brought by Vatan in 2014 alleges that claims that QTC,
"created and executed a scheme to incentivize" analysts to review as
many files as possible, and that this rush to close files came at the
expense of accuracy and completeness. He further alleges that he and
other analysts were not formally trained and were not given the VA's
training guide. QTC was paid between $300 and $350 for each file
reviewed. According to McClatchy News in 2015, QTC's various contracts
with the VA exceeded $175 million.
In February of 2016, it appeared that the case might be dead in the
water after a lower court judge threw out two of Vatan's claims against
Lockheed and QTC based on the fact that Vatan did not have access to the
full contract between the company and the government and therefore
could not prove that the company misrepresented its work. Vatan's appeal
said the court overly relied on this fact and reversed the decision.
No comments:
Post a Comment