JGL Law, Author at JGL Law

For Immediate Release

Contact: Joseph Greenwald & Laake, P.A.

Phone: 301-220-2200

FRAUD CASE BROUGHT BY WHISTLEBLOWER NURSES RESULTS IN SETTLEMENT IN HOME HEALTH CASE

Doctor’s Choice agrees to pay $5.8M to settle allegations it fraudulently increased patient visits and engaged in a kickback scheme with doctors.

GREENBELT, MD – November 23, 2020 – Joseph, Greenwald & Laake, P.A. represents three healthcare workers who blew the whistle on Florida-based home health agency Doctor’s Choice Home Care, Inc. (“Doctor’s Choice”) resulting in a $5.8 million settlement. The False Claims Act (qui tam) settlement resolves allegations that the company fraudulently increased patient visits in order to increase Medicare payments and that it paid illegal kickbacks for doctor referrals, as detailed in the Department of Justice’s announcement.

The whistleblowers are experienced healthcare providers, including registered nurse, Sara Billings, and physical therapist, Marina Eschoyez-Quiroga, both who worked for Doctor’s Choice primarily out of Naples, FL. The complaint recounted how the whistleblowers first reported their concerns internally to management, to no avail, before reporting to the Department of Justice, which undertook a thorough, four-year investigation before intervening and settling.

The lawsuit is unsealed for the public, after the United States filed a notice of intervention and dismissal. Its investigation and intervention focused on allegations that Doctor’s Choice increased the number of services rendered to Medicare patients in order to avoid lower payments. The complaint alleged that Doctor’s Choice automatically inflated patient visits without medical necessity or the independent medical judgment of the on-the-ground medical personnel.

“Providing medically unnecessary services places patients at risk and jeopardizes millions of taxpayer dollars,” said Special Agent in Charge of the FBI Tampa Division Michael McPherson in the Department of Justice release. “This settlement highlights the FBI’s commitment to protect the integrity of the federally funded healthcare system.”

The whistleblowers are represented by Veronica Nannis, Sarah Chu and Jay Holland, who prosecute civil health care fraud cases nationwide. Medicare laws require all patient care to be reasonable and medically necessary. Unreasonably increasing patient services in order to obtain higher Medicare reimbursement violates Medicare laws and the False Claim Act. “Civil healthcare fraud settlements like these are important to maintain the integrity of our healthcare system as well as taxpayer dollars. When healthcare providers improperly inflate medically unnecessary services for financial gain, this puts patients at risk and increases health care costs,” explained Sarah Chu.

Veronica Nannis, lead counsel for the whistleblowers, touted their courage, “the front-line healthcare workers who blew the whistle here are uniquely brave. While many knew of this scheme, only three were courageous enough to come forward. They protected their patients though it meant sticking their necks out as whistleblowers.” Jay Holland added, “our clients are leading by example. They hope this encourages others to report fraud, especially the kind that affects patient care or risks patient health or safety.”

The case is captioned U.S. ex rel. Billings et al. v. Doctor’s Choice Home Care, Inc., Case No. 8:16-cv-3112, United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division. The Relators are represented by a team of experienced whistleblower attorneys including Veronica Nannis, Sarah Chu and Jay Holland of Joseph, Greenwald & Laake and local counsel Audrey Schechter of Law Offices of Audrey Hildes Schechter. The federal government’s team was led by Charles Harden, Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Middle District of Florida, the Civil Division of the Department of Justice, the Office of Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services, and the FBI.

Jay Holland is a partner at Joseph, Greenwald & Laake, and is Chair of the Firm’s Labor, Employment and Qui Tam Departments. His False Claims Act cases have resulted in recoveries of over $600 Million for the United States. His recent publications include articles for The National Law Journal, Trial Magazine, DC Trial Lawyer, and the Maryland State Bar Association Employment Law Deskbook. He can be reached at jholland@jgllaw.com

Sarah Chu is an associate at Joseph, Greenwald & Laake. She works in the qui tam practice, representing whistleblowers nationwide in sealed investigations and unsealed litigation under the federal and state False Claims Acts. She can be reached at schu@jgllaw.com

Veronica Nannis is a partner at Joseph, Greenwald & Laake and serves as the Chair of the Firm’s Civil Litigation Department. She litigates qui tam cases and consumer class actions nationwide, typically involving kickbacks and other fraud. A Super Lawyer’s Rising Star in DC and Maryland for several years, she was awarded the MAJ Trial Lawyer of the Year Award in 2011. Past publications include those for Law 360, the ABA Health e-Source, and The Daily Record. She can be reached at vnannis@jgllaw.com

Disclaimer: The law discussed in this blog was current when published. However, changes have occurred to the law since and you can read about those here. If you have questions about these changes and how they affect you and your family, please contact the attorney Lindsay Parvis LParvis@jgllaw.com for a consultation.

2021 will see 5 major changes to the child support guidelines, one of which will allow the Court to decline to award any child support if certain circumstances exist. Child support law current through September 30, 2021 does not entitle a Court to decline to order child support. These changes will be found in Family Law Article §12-202(b) and apply to cases filed on and after October 1, 2021*.

Circumstances under the new law allowing a no support order are:

The child lives with the parent from whom support is sought and the parent is contributing to the child’s expenses
The parent is unemployed, has no resources to pay child support, and is incarcerated and expected to remain so for the remaining time support would be paid (but also see 2020 updates about incarcerated obligors/payors [LP1] )
The parent is institutionalized in a psychiatric care facility and expected to remain so for the remaining time support would be paid
The parent is totally and permanently disabled, unable to obtain or maintain employment, and has no income other than SSI or SSCI benefits (in which case, there is usually a dependent benefit paid for the child’s support)
The parent is unable to obtain or maintain employment in the foreseeable future due to criminal detainment, hospitalization or rehab

Interestingly, the new law also provides that a parent meeting or ceasing to meet the criteria above shall be a material change in circumstance to modify the child support award. This recognizes that the qualifying circumstances above may not be permanent and support could be awarded in future.

However, the law doesn’t tell us how this material change language fits with Family Law Article §12-202(b), that changes to the child support guidelines law are not, themselves alone, a material change in circumstance to justify a modification of child support. So, if the circumstances above exist on September 30, 2021, can a parent receive a termination or suspension of child support based upon the new law? Hard to say for sure. But if a parent does not make a request of the court, a parent won’t know.

Why did this come about? Because Maryland is legally required to review its child support guidelines every 4 years and perhaps because research has shown that child support orders for too high an amount in fact result in less child support actually being paid. So, by comparison, requiring payment of child support when a parent has no legally justifiable ability to pay may result in less child support being paid over the child’s lifetime. Also, certain of the circumstances are in keeping with federal law.

What tips should parents and attorneys keep in mind?

Don’t forget Family Law Article §12-104.1 if the basis is incarceration. Because these two statutes are different but both apply to incarcerated payors obligors. Compare the two when incarceration is justification for a suspension or termination of support. (See article about 2020 Updates Incarcerated Obligors/Payors [LP2] )
Consider material change if requesting a modification after October 1, 2021*. Per Maryland law, changes to the child support guidelines law are not, themselves alone, a material change in circumstance to justify a modification of child support (Maryland Code, Family Law Article §12-202(b)). Other material changes are needed to obtain a modification of child support. Make sure those changes exist and are stated in your Court filings. And if not and helpful to your position, point that out to the Court.
Use the 2021 law changes as a reference point for the Court. If a termination or suspension of child support is requested before October 1, 2021 based on circumstances that would allow a no support order under the new law, refer the Court to the new law if helpful to your position.
Don’t delay. If these circumstances exist now, they may justify a modification, suspension, or termination of child support now. Plus, modification can only be granted retroactive to the date a request is filed with the court*.

* Damon v. Robles, 245 Md.App. 233 (2020) provides an interesting and complicated discussion of when these exclusions may not apply. Worth a look if interested in applying October 1, 2021 changes to cases filed or circumstances existing before that date.

For other articles in this series about updates to the child support guidelines law in 2020 and 2021:

2020 Updates
- Shared Physical Custody
- Incarcerated Obligors/Payors
2021 Updates

Since 2002, Lindsay Parvis has represented clients in Maryland custody, divorce, and marital matters. She negotiates, litigates, and advocates for the best interests of her clients, whether in contested litigation, uncontested settlement, or premarital and other agreements. Her clients are not only spouses and parents, but also children whose interests she is appointed by the court to represent in contested custody litigation. Lindsay strives to improve Maryland law in the General Assembly, volunteering her time to monitor, advocate, and educate about legislative developments in family law.

2021 will see 5 major changes to the child support guidelines, one of which introduces new Maryland law on the self-support reserve for low income parents for cases filed on and after October 1, 2021*.

The self-support reserve recognizes that parents at the lowest income levels require a basic amount of money to live on before being able to pay child support. The self-support reserve standardizes this calculation, while still allowing deviation in appropriate cases.

Laws current through September 30, 2021 allow the Court to use its discretion in calculating child support now at these lowest income levels. Either in the suggested amounts of $20-150 per month for combined parent monthly incomes of $100-$1,200 or to deviate from the guidelines (so, adjust) if applying the guidelines would be unjust or inappropriate.

Why did this come about? Because Maryland is legally required to review its child support guidelines every 4 years and because research has shown that child support orders for too high an amount in fact result in less child support actually being paid. Standardizing realistic child support at lower income levels should encourage payment of more support overall and simplify the calculation of child support. Reviews of low income child support cases showed that, despite the Court’s discretion and suggested lower support amounts, in more than 40% of cases awards were higher than $150 per month.

What tips should parents and attorneys keep in mind?

Calculate and compare! If requesting child support in a lower income case, calculate and compare the 2020 to the 2021 guidelines.
Be aware of filing deadlines*. The October 1, 2021 changes apply to cases filed on and after October 1, 2021. Not cases filed before.
Use the 2021 guidelines as a reference point for the Court. If child support is discretionary or downward deviation/reduction requested, show the Court the 2021 guidelines as a reference point for the appropriate amount of support.
Consider retroactivity. When weighing filing deadlines, consider that child support and changes to child support can only be awarded dating back to the date the request is filed with the court (Family Law Article §12-104)*.
Consider material change if requesting a modification after October 1, 2021*. Per Maryland law, changes to the child support guidelines law are not, themselves alone, a material change in circumstance to justify a modification of child support (Maryland Code, Family Law Article §12-202(b)). Other material changes are needed to obtain a modification of child support. Make sure those changes exist and are stated in your Court filings. And if not and helpful to your position, point that out to the Court.

For other articles in this series about updates to the child support guidelines law in 2020 and 2021:

2020 Updates
- Shared Physical Custody
- Incarcerated Obligors/Payors
2021 Updates

2021 will see 5 major changes to the child support guidelines, one of which concerns statutory updates to existing law on voluntary impoverishment and potential income.

Voluntary impoverishment basically means a parent choosing to be unemployed or underemployed (so, reduced his or her income) in order to avoid paying child support. Starting October 1, 2021 for cases filed on and after that date*, Maryland will see changes to its child support definitions statute (Family Law Article §12-201) to:

Add “Voluntarily Impoverished”: A parent has made the free and conscious choice, not compelled by factors beyond the parent’s control, to render the parent without adequate resources. This definition is taken word for word from existing case law, Goldberger v. Goldberger, 96 Md.App. 313 (1993).
Update “Potential Income”, which is income attributed to a voluntarily impoverished parent based upon their potential and probable earnings level, taking into account an updated series of factors:
- The parent’s:
  - Age
  - Physical and behavioral condition
  - Educational attainment
  - Special training or skills
  - Literacy
  - Residence
  - Occupational qualifications and job skills
  - Employment and earnings history
  - Record of efforts to obtain and retain employment
  - Criminal record and other employment barriers
- Employment opportunities in the community where the parents lives, including:
  - Status of the job market
  - Prevailing earnings levels
  - Availability of employers willing to hire the parent
- The parent’s assets
- The parent’s actual income from all sources
- Any other factor bearing on parent’s ability to obtain funds for child support

The new law also sets out a framework in Family Law Article §12-204(b)(2) for requiring the court to make a finding of voluntary impoverishment and consider the factors stated above when determining potential income. Without explicitly requiring it, the statute certainly encourages the Court to state its reasons for the decision and how it considered the factors listed above.

Why did this come about? Because Maryland is legally required to review its child support guidelines every 4 years and to keep up to date with federal law. Per the Low-Income Subcommittee proposing these changes, these promote transparency and stronger focus on realistic consideration of potential income and amount of child support and discourage improper decisions. In fact, research has shown that child support orders for too high an amount in fact result in less child support actually being paid.

What tips should parents and attorneys keep in mind?

There are exceptions. Don’t forget that Family Law Article §12-204(b) does not allow a court to attribute income to a parent who is either unable to work because of physical or mental disability or is caring for a child under the age of 2 years for whom the parents are jointly and severally responsible (so, a child in common).
Collect & plan your evidence. The potential income definition provides a detailed roadmap of the factors a court should consider. Which requires evidence. How will you prove a parent’s efforts to obtain and retain employment? Status of the local job market? Prevailing wages? Availability of employers willing to hire the parent? Parent’s assets? Online job listings and the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics may be just two starting points. Interrogatories, Requests for Production of Documents, and trial subpoenas, a few of many tools, may be needed to ask about the parent’s efforts.
Does it call for an expert? Attributing high income potential may justify hiring a vocational rehabilitation expert to research and testify about the local job market, local wages, and willingness of employers to hire. This requires consideration of the expert’s cost and potential benefit.

* Maryland law does not allow legislative changes to the child support guidelines law, themselves alone, to serve a material change in circumstance to justify a modification of child support (Maryland Code, Family Law Article §12-202(b)) or modification of child support to a date before a request is filed with the Court. But Damon v. Robles, 245 Md.App. 233 (2020) provides an interesting and complicated discussion of when these exclusions may not apply. Worth a look if interested in applying October 1, 2021 changes to cases filed or circumstances existing before that date.

For other articles in this series about updates to the child support guidelines law in 2020 and 2021:

2020 Updates
- Shared Physical Custody
- Incarcerated Obligors/Payors
2021 Updates
- Self-Support Reserve for low income parents
- No Support Order
- Updated Economic Data
- Parents’ Combined Income of $15,001-$30,000/month

October 1, 2020 saw updates to the law (Family Law Article §12-104.1) allowing suspension of child support when the payor (the person required to pay child support; also called “obligor”) is sentenced to incarceration for 180 consecutive calendar days or more. This is a change from 18 consecutive months to 180 consecutive days. This applies to cases filed on and after October 1, 2020.

The law’s other requirements remain the same:

The payor is not on work release and has insufficient funds to pay support; and,
The payor didn’t commit the crime intending to be incarcerated or of becoming impoverished (so, unable to pay support).

What tips should parents and attorneys keep in mind?

There’s not much law on this topic. Have Wills v. Jones, 340 Md. 480 (1995) (predating §12-104.1) and Damon v. Robles, 245 Md.App. 233 (2020) on your radar.
Look ahead. To 2021’s changes to Family Law Article §12-202, introducing the “no support order” when a parent is incarcerated and expected to remain so for the remaining time required to pay child support. See the link below for discussion about no support orders.
If OCSE doesn’t address suspension, file a motion. Because child support and arrears do not automatically suspend or get adjusted.
Retroactivity. Damon v. Robles, 245 Md.App. 233 (2020) is an interesting discussion of 2 exceptions to retroactivity limitations: 1) when a law’s changes apply to circumstances existing before the law went into effect (contrary to the material change exclusion of Family Law Article §12-202(b)) and 2) suspension of support prior to the date of filing (contrary to the limitation of Family Law Article §12-104). These exceptions may apply to this newest update to Family Law Article §12-104.1.

For other articles in this series about updates to the child support guidelines law in 2020 and 2021:

2020 Updates
- Shared Physical Custody
2021 Updates

The 2020 Session of the Maryland General Assembly saw several major developments to Maryland’s law on child support, some of which went into effect October 1, 2020 and the others going into effect October 1, 2021.

This series of articles discusses those changes and provides tips for parents and attorneys in child support negotiation, mediation, and litigation.

The series covers these changes in the law:

2020 Updates
- Shared Physical Custody
- Incarcerated Obligors/Payors
2021 Updates

My biggest tip: Calculate & Compare. What does that mean? Read each article to find out…

A few years ago, I wrote a blog about Uber and the possibilities of paradigm shifts and the new insurance coverages that lay ahead. Today, I am updating you on the major events that may very shortly rock the GIG world economy and change the way we handle worker’s compensation and insurance coverages for these “Service Connect Apps.”

It is all very dramatic and the stakes, involve millions of dollars. If it were not for the pandemic and the election taking all the oxygen in 24 hour news coverage, I am sure the story playing out in California, month by month, with dynamic twists and turns, would be front and center. Why? It involves public and private sectors, all taking sides, to come to a final answer in the state that essentially launched Uber and paved the way for others, like Instacart, Doordash, and many others to spread their wings. The service industry grew beyond its wildest dreams by demand during the pandemic year. Once the state of California reaches the end of the court and proposition election battle, the nation will have an answer for “rating” their workers as employees, independent contractors or a hybrid.

First, let me give you a brief summary of the long battle. Although different states have also grappled with the definitions and coverages of these workers, California proceeded through many levels to arrive at this November election. And it is all about the money. Maybe no one imagined how popular these “Apps” would be? Or maybe the states were waiting quietly until the Uber’s of the world showed their huge command of the transport economy? People may not remember way back in New England, where FEDEX fought the fight to keep their drivers as independent contractors. We all know how that turned out. So why did the GIG economy folks not learn? Why not be proactive and propose new hybrids and compromise before the fight occurred? I am not sure, but I think they committed a tactical mistake by not preparing and working out a new form of worker status. Instead they fought, in every jurisdiction, state and country around the world. Whether it was physical fights with cab drivers in France, where the stakes where so high that corruption was alleged in corporate levels, or whether the municipalities of states like Florida battled the service giant on their own, by promulgating regulations within their city limits, no resolution was reached. In Maryland, as I spelled out in the original blog, the Public Service Commission set the agenda. However, the liability issues remained open to interpretation.

So the stage is set for the November election. I recently was interviewed for a JGL Law podcast and discussed the events in California. First, the state passed A.B.5, basically stating that workers were employees and subject to all taxes, worker’s compensation, and liability unless they met certain exceptions to be independent contractors. The Uber and Lyft companies filed in court to be independent. The lower court ruled against them. However, they bought some time, as they won a stay, pending the Appeals court hearing arguments. They lost again, with the recent Court decision denying any further stay and dramatically ordering employee status be in place within 30 days. Meanwhile all guns are loaded for a massive ad campaign to win at the public opinion level, with Proposition 22 on the ballot. If successful, Uber and Lyft would continue to be able to treat drivers with some form of non-employee status. This situation is as tense as the wild fires that stoke timbers in the state, because the election is on the heels of the denial of the stay. Uber states there is no way that their HR department could ever do such a conversion in such short time frame.

The most interesting aspect is that even the workers are undecided. Some do not want anything but independent contractor status. Others want employee classification and all the benefits that come with it. Some want a hybrid version with flexibility and some of the benefits. The government of California wants the revenue and argues that these companies have robbed the state by not paying taxes on employees for too many years. Uber states that their platform is unique and the new norm.

Let’s meet back in November.

Trial by Zoom is a technological advance that I would not have anticipated in my career, but here we find ourselves. In addition to the physical distancing benefits, court appearances by zoom can save time, money (especially from time off work or for childcare), and the cost of attorney travel to & from court.

However, a court appearance by Zoom is not just something to “show up for” – you need to plan ahead. Below are some tips to help you do just that:

Look for a court notice or e-mail about whether your court date will be by Zoom, telephone, or in person. Not every case or type of court date is handled the same way, so check every time. If none, call the Court to confirm.
Check out the Judiciary’s resources & tip sheets for basic Zoom and preparation tips:

Make sure your device has Zoom installed and that you have access to a stable internet connection. Internet problems cause the biggest delays in zoom trials. Have a backup device (or two) just in case your preferred device doesn’t work.
Audio matters. Be in a quiet place with complete privacy. Test the speaker quality on your device. Consider headphones or participating both by muted video and telephone if that means better audio quality.
Location matters. If represented by an attorney, discuss in advance where you and the attorney will physically be during the trial. Consider participating from your attorney’s office, if that means more stable internet and better access to your attorney, and have a plan for your testimony. Will you testify from the same conference room in which your attorney is located? Or, from a separate conference room and on a separate device, so you need not wear a mask? Same applies for witnesses.

If unrepresented, participate from as quiet and private a location as possible.The presence of a witness in the same space can cause problems if not disclosed.If interruptions occur, ask for a break if necessary.Have ready access to your device’s charger and an outlet.

Have an exhibit plan. You should receive instructions from the Court before your trial about how to submit exhibits in advance. Every Judge and Magistrate seems to handle this differently. If possible, have a conference with the Judge or Magistrate before trial to understand whether exhibits used in the courtroom will be hard copy or electronic and whether screensharing will be used or not. And, have an exhibit contingency plan – paper backup & electronic versions readily available – in case your Judge or Magistrate assignment changes last minute or technology doesn’t cooperate. Finally, either make sure all exhibits have a unique identifying number (often referred to as a Bates Number) or describe each document very carefully to make sure that what has been marked for identification is the right document.
Despite the conveniences, it’s still a formal trial. Taking it seriously shows respect and makes a favorable impression on the Judge or Magistrate. Participating from bed or in pajamas or while eating is not appropriate.
Time limitations. Because technology problems can eat up valuable trial time, prioritize your important points and evidence, making them first, in case time runs out.

While there’s no such thing as a perfect trial, planning ahead can help make a trial as successful as possible, even when the unexpected occurs.

For Immediate Release

Contact: Joseph Greenwald & Laake, P.A.

Veronica Nannis; vnannis@jgllaw.com

Jay Holland; jholland@jgllaw.com

Phone: 301-220-2200

WHISTLEBLOWER LAWSUIT AGAINST MEDICAL DEVICE COMPANY SETTLES FOR $18 MILLION AND CONTINUING COMPLIANCE MONITORING

Suit by former compliance officer alleged kickback scheme to pay for physician

advertising and grants to induce their use of company’s products.

GREENBELT, MD – October 14, 2020 – Joseph, Greenwald & Laake, P.A. represents a former Chief Compliance Officer and whistleblower against a medical device company in a case that settled today with the federal government and numerous participating states for $18 million. The False Claims Act (qui tam) complaint against Utah-based Merit Medical, Inc. alleged an extensive fraud scheme involving unlawful kickbacks to physicians to induce their use of Merit’s devices over those of its competitors. As a result of the whistleblower’s actions, Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General also entered into a five year Corporate Integrity Agreement with Merit related to this case, which requires the company to submit to ongoing compliance monitoring.

The whistleblower, Dr. Charles Wolf, is a non-practicing medical doctor and an accredited healthcare compliance professional with over 20 years of experience. The complaint recounted how Dr. Wolf reported his concerns about the alleged fraud to Merit’s management during his tenure as its Chief Compliance Officer, all to no avail. Unable to effect change from within, Dr. Wolf resigned from Merit and reported his information to the Department of Justice, which undertook a thorough investigation before deciding to intervene.

The lawsuit was made public on June 12, 2020, after the United States filed its notice of intervention and the Court unsealed the case. On July 9, 2020, the government notified the Court of a resolution, and today the government filed a dismissal of the action and issued its own press release.

The complaint focused on kickback allegations that Merit provided paid advertising, practice support and unrestricted “educational grants” for loyal Merit users in order to influence physicians to use Merit devices. Disguised as educational in nature, the suit claims that, instead, the money paid to physicians was meant to effect and “induce hospitals and physicians to purchase additional equipment, supplies and/or products from Merit” in violation of the Anti-Kickback Statute.

Federal and state laws prohibit payments of any kind to physicians – including marketing dollars or “educational grants” – to influence physician choice of medical devices. “Prosecuting these cases protects our healthcare system broadly, and patients more specifically. When medical device companies pay something of value to induce physicians to use their devices to the exclusion of others, that can effect independent medical judgment and patient care,” said Veronica Nannis. Nannis and her partner, Jay Holland, represented the whistleblower along with former Assistant United States Attorney, Timothy J. McInnis.

Holland touted the four-year investigation performed by Department of Justice and the U.S. Attorney’s Office in New Jersey and the strong partnership between whistleblower’s counsel and the government. “The government was unwavering in its pursuit of justice here. Its intervention after a long, careful investigation and then its resolution of this case underscores its goal of protecting patients, rooting out fraud and recouping tax dollars,” said Holland.

The case is captioned U.S. ex rel. Wolf v. Merit Medical Systems, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-01855-CCC-MF, United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, Newark Division. The Relator is represented by a team of experienced whistleblower attorneys including Jay Holland and Veronica Nannis of Joseph, Greenwald & Laake and Timothy McInnis of McInnis Law. The federal government’s team was led by Chris Terranova, Trial Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, and Andrew A. Caffrey III, Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Health Care and Government Fraud Unit out of Newark, NJ. A fantastic team from the National Association of Medicaid Control Fraud Units was also invaluable in representing the states’ interests.

He can be reached at jholland@jgllaw.com

Joseph, Greenwald and Laake has been representing clients in suburban Maryland and the District of Columbia for almost 50 years. With offices in Greenbelt and Rockville, Maryland, we have lawyers who focus their practices in diverse areas of the law, including employment and whistleblower actions, family law, estates and trusts, civil rights, business planning and commercial litigation, personal injury, medical and professional negligence.

In this episode, Anne Grover & Patrick Dragga answer the following questions and more:

What are the first steps to take when contemplating a divorce?
How accurate are the internet reviews about lawyers?
Should I look for somebody who has experience in individual situation or sub-area?

JGL LAW FOR YOU brings you up close and personal with our lawyers who will be discussing how to navigate the many legal processes, developments in the law, other current events and how they may affect you.

In this episode, Reza Golesorkhi & Christopher Castellano answer the following questions and more:

What do I bring to the meeting with my lawyer?
Does it matter if you make the most income or not?
How does the client strategize their finances?

In this episode, Darin Rumer answers the following questions and more:

What to ask, bring and expect on your first meeting?
What documents to bring with you?
Should clients have questions prepared? And how should they present them?
What questions can the client expect to be asked?

Cookie	Duration	Description
__cf_bm	1 hour	This cookie, set by Cloudflare, is used to support Cloudflare Bot Management.
cookie_check	1 day	Paypal sets this cookie to a request for services, such as setting your privacy preferences, logging in, filling in forms, and setting the user browser to block or alert you about these cookies.
cookielawinfo-checkbox-advertisement	1 year	Set by the GDPR Cookie Consent plugin, this cookie records the user consent for the cookies in the "Advertisement" category.
cookielawinfo-checkbox-analytics	11 months	This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Analytics".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-functional	11 months	The cookie is set by GDPR cookie consent to record the user consent for the cookies in the category "Functional".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-necessary	11 months	This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookies is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Necessary".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-others	11 months	This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Other.
cookielawinfo-checkbox-performance	11 months	This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Performance".
CookieLawInfoConsent	1 year	CookieYes sets this cookie to record the default button state of the corresponding category and the status of CCPA. It works only in coordination with the primary cookie.
viewed_cookie_policy	11 months	The cookie is set by the GDPR Cookie Consent plugin and is used to store whether or not user has consented to the use of cookies. It does not store any personal data.

Cookie	Duration	Description
_ga	1 year 1 month 4 days	Google Analytics sets this cookie to calculate visitor, session and campaign data and track site usage for the site's analytics report. The cookie stores information anonymously and assigns a randomly generated number to recognise unique visitors.
_ga_*	1 year 1 month 4 days	Google Analytics sets this cookie to store and count page views.
_gat_UA-*	1 minute	Google Analytics sets this cookie for user behaviour tracking.
_gcl_au	3 months	Google Tag Manager sets the cookie to experiment advertisement efficiency of websites using their services.
_gid	1 day	Google Analytics sets this cookie to store information on how visitors use a website while also creating an analytics report of the website's performance. Some of the collected data includes the number of visitors, their source, and the pages they visit anonymously.

Author: JGL Law

Posts by JGL Law