|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Free Newsletters
Archive
My Subscriptions
News by Subject
News by Disease
News by Date
PLoS
Search News
Post Your News
JoVE
Job Seeker Login
Most Recent Jobs
Browse Biotech Jobs
Search Jobs
Post Resume
Career Fairs
Career Resources
For Employers
Regional News
US & Canada
Biotech Bay
Biotech Beach
Genetown
Pharm Country
BioCapital
BioMidwest
Bio NC
BioForest
Southern Pharm
BioCanada East
US Device
Europe
Asia
Market Summary
News
IPOs
Company Profiles
Companies
Events
Research Store
Biotech Events
Post an Event
Real Estate
Business Opportunities
|
|
|
|
|
News | News By Subject | News by Disease |
News By Date | Search News
|
|
|
Did DaVita Inc. (DVA) Admit Fraud in Suing a Whistleblower?
2/14/2013 8:02:10 AM
File this under ‘What were they thinking?’ Since a fair number of whistleblower cases pop up in the pharmaceutical industry, a recent development concerning a whistleblower and DaVita, the second-largest independent provider of dialysis services in the US, might be of interest. Consider the following… Along with a nurse, a nephrologist and former medical director named Alon Vainer filed a whistleblower lawsuit in 2007 alleging DaVita deliberately wasted medicine in order to gain hundreds of millions of dollars in extra payments from Medicare. They claim DaVita used unnecessarily large vials of different meds because Medicare would pay for unused portions of each vial if these were deemed unavoidable waste. So how has DaVita responded? Besides denying the allegations, the dialysis provider filed its own lawsuit against Vainer. Now, consider the accusations: DaVita charged Vainer breached his contract, caused damages by not alerting DaVita to violations of the law and filed invoices falsely claiming he complied with his agreement, which he could not have done if he did not alert DaVita to any violations of the law. Yes, you read that correctly. It would apppear that DaVita officials are suing the whistleblower for not bringing their own purported fraud to their attention. Consequently, the DaVita team appears to somehow acknowledge that the fraud took place after all, even though they have denied this all along. This prompted an interesting response from the judge hearing the combined cases…
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|