JGL Law Clerk Mathew Seeburger won the George J. Skuros’ Justice in Family Law Scholarship for his essay “Religious Rights, Custody and Divorce: Navigating Injustices in American Family Law.”
In the essay, Mathew discusses ways to improve the legal framework for making custody decisions involving religious considerations. He argues that adopting a stricter test could enhance consistency in evaluations, ensuring fair outcomes for both parents and children while safeguarding their well-being.
In an article published on January 3, 2025, by Law360, Veronica Nannis was quoted about JGL’s representation of Thomas Fischer, the former chief financial officer of Community Health Network, who filed a False Claims Act (FCA) case on behalf of the United States and the State of Indiana more than ten years ago. Fischer recently settled the remaining claims, which included both non-intervened FCA claims and Fischer’s employment related claims. JGL was lead counsel for Fischer on the FCA claims.
The $135 million FCA settlement, which was reached in December 2024, ends the federal healthcare fraud claims brought by Fischer, a whistleblower, or “relator” under the FCA, who filed suit on behalf of the governments based on detailed insider knowledge of fraud. Notably, the deal was reached a year after the Indiana healthcare system agreed to pay $345 million to settle FCA allegations from the government in a qui tam action in December 2023. Community Health also paid $20.3 million in 2015 to resolve civil allegations that it submitted false claims to Medicare and Medicaid programs. Taken together, Community Health has now paid more than half a billion dollars in three False Claims Act settlements in the last decade.
Veronica Nannis, who represented Fischer, in addition to JGL attorneys Jay Holland, Steven Pavsner and Virginia Grimm, said the $135 million settlement is a testament to the nature of the FCA, which allows private individuals to file suit on behalf of the government. “It shows the genius of the FCA — allowing the government to focus on some of the claims while the relator takes the laboring oar on the other claims. This is often the best way to ensure maximum recovery for the taxpayer.”
This settlement resolves claims brought by Fischer on behalf of the governments after the governments declined to intervene. Fischer alleged that Community Health overpaid employed physicians, as well as those who worked for an independent oncology group that contracted exclusively with Community Health, and that the excessive payments were made to ensure that the physicians sent their patients to Community Health facilities – a violation of federal and state laws, including the Stark Law – which prohibit payments of any kind to physicians to influence where they treat or refer patients. Fischer also alleged that Community Health paid above-fair market value rent to a physician-owned real estate partnership to induce the physician owners to refer patients to a Community Health owned ambulatory surgical center in violation of the Anti-kickback Statute.
Continue reading the Law360 article “Hospital Org Inks $135M Deal To End Ex-CFO’s Fraud Claims.”
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals enjoined enforcement of the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) on December 26, 2024, in Texas Top Cop Shop, et al. v. Merrick Garland, et al., No. 24-40792 (5th Cir. 2024). As a result, companies are not currently required to file a Beneficial Ownership Information Report (BOIR).
Texas Top Cop Shop is one of several lawsuits, including National Small Business United v. Yellen, No. 5:22-cv-01448 (N.D. Ala. Mar. 1, 2024), which could permanently alter the CTA. While entities are not currently required to file a BOIR, they should monitor Texas Top Cop Shop and National Small Business United closely and be prepared to file a BOIR should the status quo change.
The CTA requires certain businesses to provide ownership information to federal law enforcement agencies for anti-terrorism purposes. The U.S. Department of Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) recently finalized a new reporting rule that requires companies to identify “beneficial owners” and “Company applicants” in an effort to obtain increased transparency. Get more information about the reporting rule.
The rule was created to combat bad actors who operate through corporate entities and behind a curtain of anonymity. The rule became effective on January 1, 2024, but has been challenged by pro-business groups that claim the CTA is unconstitutional. The federal government was enjoined from enforcing the CTA on December 26, 2024.
The Texas Top Cop Shop plaintiffs sued several federal agencies alleging that the CTA’s mandated disclosure of anonymous owners violates the First and Fourth Amendments. Tex. Top Cop Shop, Inc. v. Garland, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 218294, *21–22 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 3, 2024). They also argue that the CTA impinges on States rights under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments by, among other things, regulating interstate commerce. Id. The District Court agreed with the plaintiffs, found that the CTA violates the Tenth Amendment, and entered an injunction halting enforcement of the CTA on December 3, 2024. Id. at *116.
Defendants immediately appealed the District Court’s decision to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. On December 23, 2024, the Fifth Circuit stayed the injunction, reinstated the CTA, and set an expedited briefing schedule for the parties. Tex. Top Cop Shop, Inc. v. Garland, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 218294 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 23, 2024). The FinCEN website immediately promulgated new deadlines for compliance with the CTA’s reporting rule in response to the Fifth Circuit’s decision. [Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, https://fincen.gov/boi (last visited Jan. 2, 2025).]
But, on December 26, 2024, the Fifth Circuit again reversed course, and a separate panel vacated the stay entered just three days prior. It revived the injunction to “preserve the constitutional status quo while the merits panel considers the” validity of the underlying claims. Tex. Top Cop Shop, Inc. v. Garland, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 32702 (5th Cir. Dec. 26, 2024). As a result, enforcement of the CTA was again enjoined, and its reporting requirements halted.
On December 27, 2024, the FinCEN website (Supra, note 2) issued the following alert:
In light of a recent federal court order, reporting companies are not currently required to file beneficial ownership information with FinCEN and are not subject to liability if they fail to do so while the order remains in force. However, reporting companies may continue to voluntarily submit beneficial ownership information reports.
There have been no updates since the Fifth Circuit’s December 26, 2024, decision but companies should monitor the case closely. While companies are currently exempt, they should be prepared to file a BOIR if the injunction is dissolved.
Second Record-Breaking Settlement Paid by Community Health Network in one Year; Third False Claims Act Settlement for Hospital Network in Last Ten Years
January 2, 2025 GREENBELT – Indiana-based Community Health Network (Community) settled the second half of a healthcare fraud case for $135 million. This settlement is the culmination of the False Claims Act (FCA) case brought by whistleblower and former Community Chief Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer Thomas P. Fischer on behalf of the United States and State of Indiana more than ten years ago.
This settlement would have represented the largest settlement in a case of its type (by $20 million) but for the fact that the United States and Community settled the first part of Mr. Fischer’s case for $345 million last December. Taken together with its $20.3 million settlement with DOJ in 2015, Community has now paid more than half a billion dollars in three False Claims Act settlements in the last decade.
The settlement comes after Mr. Fischer sued his former employer, Community. Fischer is a whistleblower, or “relator” under the FCA, who filed suit on behalf of the governments based on detailed insider knowledge of fraud. Along with the settlement of the governments’ claims, Mr. Fischer and Community also resolved his employment-related claims.
This settlement resolves allegations that Community overpaid employed physicians (both physicians directly employed by Community and an independent oncology group – Community Hospital Oncology Providers – who contracted exclusively with Community). The suit alleged that the excessive payments to physicians were paid to ensure that they sent their patients to Community facilities – in violation of federal and state laws, including the Stark Law — which prohibit payments of any kind, including inflated salaries, to physicians to influence where they treat or refer patients.
This settlement also includes allegations that Community paid above-fair market value rent to a physician-owned real estate partnership to induce the physician owners to refer patients to a Community owned ambulatory surgical center in violation of the Anti-kickback Statute. While the settlement last December was for claims prosecuted by the United States, these newly-settled claims were for those prosecuted by Mr. Fischer on behalf of the governments after they declined to intervene.
Describing the combination of intervened and non-intervened claims, Mr. Fischer’s counsel Veronica Nannis of Joseph Greenwald and Laake commented, “This historic settlement is a testament to the public-private partnership unique to the FCA. It shows the genius of the FCA – allowing the government to focus on some of the claims, while the relator takes the laboring oar on the other claims. This is often the best way to ensure maximum recovery for the taxpayer.”
JGL Partner Jay Holland echoed the sentiment, “This record settlement demonstrates the important contribution whistleblowers can make even when the government declines a case. As lead counsel on this contentious litigation, we are so proud of the exemplary work of our JGL team, including our colleagues Steven Pavsner and Virginia Grimm. At our side, our co-counsel firms formed a formidable team that was able to prosecute a vigorously defended case by large, national law firms.”
JGL Partner Steve Pavsner, who deposed Community’s outside counsel, in-house counsel, principal executives, outside consultant, and board members, added: “Hopefully, this litigation will serve as a warning to others that the Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement rules need to be followed.”
Fischer reflected, “This has been a long journey – more than ten years and thousands of hours of work – and I couldn’t have done it without the unwavering support of my wife, Gayle.”
Mr. Fischer stated that his efforts were intended to hold the Community executives and its board of directors accountable for their actions. Further, he complimented the thousands of hard-working and honest Community employees who have dedicated their lives to patient care.
Fischer continued, “I am profoundly grateful for the diligence, persistence and skill of the great government teams (both the US and Indiana) that worked on this case – especially lead DOJ attorney Arthur DiDio – and the incredible efforts of my legal team who represented me throughout.”
Fischer hopes this settlement will encourage other whistleblowers. “I hope these settlements will help empower and inspire others working in healthcare organizations across the country to speak up and speak out if and when they see potential fraud – both internally within their organizations and, if internal whistleblowing doesn’t work, to report to the government.”
“These claims are not mere technicalities; they directly affect patients, hospital employees and the high cost of healthcare. This settlement puts money back into the healthcare system and is a victory for Indiana and federal taxpayers,” Fischer said.
Fischer’s Indianapolis attorney Kathleen DeLaney added, “We are pleased to have reached a global settlement with Community which also resolves Mr. Fischer’s individual retaliation and employment-based legal claims ten years after his wrongful termination.”
For DeLaney and Fischer’s other counsel, Tim McCormack, this has been a 10-plus year journey.
“I could not be prouder of Mr. Fischer’s tenacity,” said McCormack. “Cases like this are vital to keeping financial incentives away from medical judgment. Without a brave insider like Mr. Fischer, willing to speak up and then blow the whistle, Community likely would have gotten away with alleged fraud.”
Mr. McCormack continued: “After three False Claims Act settlements worth more than half a billion dollars in the last ten years, it will be interesting to see what steps Community takes to reform its physician compensation and billing practices. With this case, both DOJ and the Indiana Attorney General’s Office have demonstrated their tenacious commitment to fighting suspected healthcare fraud.”
The case is U.S. and State of Indiana ex rel Fischer v. Community Health Network, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-1215-RLY-MKK. Fischer is represented by lead counsel Veronica Nannis, Jay Holland, Steven Pavsner and Virginia Grimm, Joseph, Greenwald & Laake; Timothy McCormack, Michael Smith, Elizabeth Quinby, and Michael Hanify, Preti Flaherty Beliveau & Pachios, LLP; Bruce Greenberg and Anthony Zatkos, Lite DePalma; and local and employment counsel Kathleen DeLaney and Anna Conklin, DeLaney & DeLaney LLC. The government’s team was led by Arthur DiDio of the DOJ, United States Attorney for the Southern District of Indiana Zachary A. Myers and Civil Chief for the U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Indiana, Shelese Woods; Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita; Director of the Indiana Medicaid Fraud Control Unit Matthew Whitmire, and Deputy Attorney General Lawrence Carcare.
What will Trump’s second term look like at the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)? Initially, policy change may not move as fast as one might expect because three Commissioners will remain Democratic at least for the first two years of Trump’s term. However, Trump will likely appoint Andrea Lucas, the Commission’s sole Republican, as the EEOC Chair and hire a new general counsel, replacing Karla Gilbride, who has been a champion for worker’s rights.
Moreover, given Trump’s statements and statements from his supporters, including Vivek Ramaswamy and Elon Musk, the EEOC’s Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs such as the DEI Workshop Series conducted by the EEOC Training Institute are likely to go by the wayside quickly. Employers can also anticipate not being concerned with providing their LGBTQ+ workforce with as expansive rights as those seen under the Biden Administration. For example, LGBTQ+ employees’ rights such as using bathrooms that correspond to an employee’s gender identity are not likely to be enforced or reversed altogether.
The EEOC’s interpretations of the 2023 Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA), which provides workplace accommodations for physical or mental conditions related to, affected by, or arising out of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions, is also likely to be more restrictive. This means that expansive interpretations of the PWFA covering abortion, menopause, and infertility are less likely. Employees can also expect a consolidation of the EEOC’s workforce and not filling openings once federal employees leave or retire. As a result, cases will take longer to process and investigate due to fewer employees at the EEOC, including investigators. In sum, the next two years are likely to be one of little enforcement, stagnation, and a reduction in the protections for the LGBTQ+ workforce as well as for pregnancy, childbirth and related medical conditions.
Jay Holland, Veronica Nannis and Gia Grimm highlight a number of standout False Claims Act (FCA) settlements that were announced in late 2023 and so far in 2024 in the Winter 2025 issue of Turning Square Corners, the newsletter of the Federal Bar Association Qui Tam Section. The lawyers note that, as usual, the largest FCA settlements were in the healthcare space, and kickback allegations continue to dominate these cases.
Continue reading the article “2024 False Claims Act Settlements and Judgment Record-breaking Year: The Standout” on p. 16-18 in the Turning Square Corners newsletter.
Super Lawyers has named 12 attorneys from JGL’s Maryland offices to its 2025 Maryland Super Lawyers and Rising Stars lists. In addition, Lindsay Parvis was named to the Top 100 Super Lawyers list in Maryland and the Top 50 Women Super Lawyers list in Maryland.
Super Lawyers, part of Thomson Reuters, is a rating service of outstanding lawyers in over 70 practice areas, who have achieved a high degree of professional achievement and peer recognition. The annual selection process combines independent research, peer nominations and evaluations, with no more than five percent of each state’s attorneys named to the Super Lawyers list and no more than 2.5 percent named to the Rising Stars list.
The following attorneys were named to the 2025 Super Lawyers list:
The following attorneys were named to the 2025 Super Lawyers Rising Stars list:
In an article published on December 11, 2024, by Corporate Compliance Insights, Brian Markovitz was quoted as an expert source regarding the Federal Trade Commission’s ban on noncompete clauses in employment contracts.
The year-in-review article, which focuses on regulatory uncertainty, technological disruption and changing enforcement priorities, taps various experts to share their thoughts on 2024 and provide insight about what’s to come in 2025.
One of the many developments this past year was a decision from a federal judge in Texas who ruled that the FTC’s ban on noncompete clauses in most employment contracts was unconstitutional and could not be enforced. The decision was issued only a few weeks before the ban was set to take effect.
Considering the results of the 2024 election and a Republican-led Congress, Brian does not expect the noncompete ban to last. “To the extent the FTC’s ban had a difficult path before the election with the Supreme Court most likely against it, the ban is now dead,” he said. “I expect revocation of the ban will be one of the first actions taken by the FTC in 2025 under the new administration.”
Read the article “Top Stories of 2024” on the Corporate Compliance Insights website.
In an article published in the Anti-Corruption Report on December 4, 2024, Veronica discusses the DOJ’s focus on cybersecurity fraud and the agency’s efforts to pursue alleged offenders in unprecedented ways. Veronica summarizes the DOJ’s efforts since 2021, including recent investigations, settlements and litigations, and discusses what cybersecurity contractors should do both to maintain compliance and avoid costly cyber-fraud investigations.
In October 2024, my colleague and family law attorney here at JGL, Lindsay Parvis and I were excited to be contacted by the Magazines and Supplements Editor for ALM/Law.com and The Legal Intelligencer to write a follow-up piece based upon our previous JGL Podcast “When Family Law and Personal Injury Collide. You can listen to the podcast here.
This blog highlights a few of the key takeaways from the article we wrote from a personal injury perspective.
As personal injury and family law are both complicated areas, they become more so when they overlap.
This article provides practical tips to help attorneys avoid potential hazards and pitfalls during representation.
During the initial intake, personal injury attorneys should inquire with their clients for marital relationships, separating (or separated) couples, divorcing spouses, and child custody issues. Identifying these relationships early can help to identify current or prior conflicts. Attorneys should also be aware of the potential physical and emotional strain to a marriage or custodial relationship when one or both spouses suffer a severe injury during representation and how this may impact which claims may be pursued, and how they may be pursued if the case proceeds to litigation.
If the personal injury attorney has properly inquired into a client’s marital or custodial status, this information provides vast opportunities for strategically structuring a settlement. A couple may be newly separated, separated for a period of time, or will be separated at some date in the future, and these are all factors that may affect how personal injury awards may be structured and which claims your client may or may not want to make. Personal injury attorneys can specify categories of settlements which may or may not be marital property.
Nearly all states have comparative negligence laws regarding liability, so when in accidents where one spouse is driving and the other is a passenger, comparative negligence does not present a problem as both spouses can make claims against any of the other drivers depending upon presumed liability.
However, in Maryland, Washington, D.C., and Virginia, the law of contributory negligence holds barring recovery for the spouse who was driving, even if he/she were only partially at fault. This now presents a problem for the passenger spouse, who has no liability or fault, who would only receive recovery from suing their own spouse. Various martial situations provide different results.
Personal injury attorneys classify damages as economic and noneconomic; however, depending on where your client is in the divorce process, categorizing damages may be tricky. In marital property states, all assets and debts acquired during the marriage are divided equally (or about equally). This also includes personal injury settlements. Equitable distribution states inventory assets and categorize as separate or marital property. Personal injury awards can be a mix of both.
For the attorneys, take note of your client’s damages. Awards for medical expenses and lost wages during the marriage are generally treated as marital property, especially when marital assets are used to pay for such expenses. Awards for noneconomic damages, such as pain and suffering, and loss of consortium are generally separate property as the victim incurs them individually. Personal injury attorneys can maximize the benefits of a personal injury award for their client just by categorizing the distribution of funds.
Most importantly, when a personal injury attorney finds themselves in a tricky situation, reach out to a trusted and respected family law attorney who can provide the guidance necessary when discussing claims and settlements.
ABOUT THE PUBLICATION: Law.com is the premiere source for trusted and timely legal news and analysis. Subscribers to the site can access stories from across ALM’s national and regional publications, with the opportunity to view news by practice area. Each practice area offers a rich selection of articles, curated by ALM’s expert editorial team. In addition, Law.com features views from leading voices in the legal field through the Law.com Contributor Network. Learn more here. The Legal Intelligencer is an ALM/Law.com publication and the nation’s oldest daily legal newspaper, serving the legal community of Philadelphia and surrounding areas.
In Maryland, the grounds for divorce have evolved to reflect our changing society. Specifically, in 2023, Maryland revised the grounds for divorce to include “irreconcilable differences” and was seen as part of Maryland’s shift towards ‘no-fault divorce’. With more than a year having passed since the change, it is worthwhile to discuss reactions to irreconcilable differences, including whether there is a net benefit to the parties involved in a divorce.
For years, we have heard about ‘Irreconcilable differences’ related to high-profile divorces, usually involved celebrities. The ground for divorce refers to significant issues or conflicts between spouses that cannot be resolved, which leads to the breakdown of the marriage. Notably, these differences can stem from various factors, such as infidelity, cruel treatment, or simply fundamental disagreements that make it impossible for the couple to continue living together as a married couple. But importantly, the law does not require to find that infidelity or cruel treatment occurred, but rather that differences arose between the spouses that are irreconcilable and therefore, the marriage must end.
To file for divorce based on irreconcilable differences, one or both spouses must believe that the marriage should end due to unresolved conflicts. Unlike the fault-based grounds of old, there is no need to prove wrongdoing by the offending spouse. The concept by lawmakers was to make the process simpler and quicker and only focus on the fact that the marriage is no longer viable rather than on assigning blame.
To successfully file for divorce on the grounds of irreconcilable differences in Maryland, the spouse asking for the divorce must be a resident of Maryland for at least six months prior to filing the complaint, you must identify that you are filing based on irreconcilable differences, and you must briefly identify what those irreconcilable differences are.
One common question that arises in this new world of ‘irreconcilable differences’ is whether or not a spouse’s prior bad acts are irrelevant if proving the acts is no longer necessary. While it is true that there is no longer a requirement to prove that (for instance) adultery occurred, that does not mean that the adultery is rendered irrelevant. In fact, Maryland still considers spousal conduct as a relevant consideration when deciding alimony or property distribution.
Going through a divorce is an extremely emotionally taxing experience that is surpassed only by having lived through the reason for the divorce in the first place. For many, having a court find that their spouse is ‘to blame’ is often more important than the monetary outcome. While transitioning away from fault-based divorce does mean transitioning away from the focus of ‘blame’, irreconcilable differences can provide an easier path for a victim-spouse to exit a difficult or harmful relationship without the burden to relive the trauma that caused the divorce in the first place. Additionally, irreconcilable differences can lead to a quicker divorce by way of focusing on how to resolve issues related to alimony, custody, and property division as opposed to proving fault.
Ultimately, transitioning to ‘irreconcilable differences’ allows spouses to focus on formally ending their relationship as opposed to focusing on what caused the end of their relationship. It is this nuanced paradigm shift that aims to reduce fees and litigation time and allow for the emotional recovery stage to begin quicker. If you want to talk about how irreconcilable differences can impact your case, contact Christopher R. Castellano.
In this episode of JGL LAW FOR YOU, JGL family law attorneys Lindsay Parvis and David Bulitt discuss tips for managing the holidays when shared between two households during and after Divorce.
