State foster care system to go on
Marcia Robinson Lowry and another attorney walk to a Wednesday hearing in Tulsa on a class-action lawsuit seeking changes in the state's foster-care system. Robinson Lowry, an attorney for the plaintiffs, pushed for the scheduling of a trial next summer. SHERRY BROWN/ Tulsa World
By DAVID HARPER World Staff Writer
Published: 7/8/2010 2:24 AM
Last Modified: 7/8/2010 6:10 AM
A trial date that is well more than a year away was scheduled Wednesday in a class-action lawsuit that seeks changes in the state's foster-care system.
U.S. District Judge Gregory Frizzell set the trial for Oct. 17, 2011, but said the date "may be a bit ambitious" in light of the scope of the case. He told attorneys that "it will require all of your efforts" to attain the goal.
Marcia Robinson Lowry, one of the attorneys for the plaintiffs, had asked that the nonjury trial be scheduled for next summer. However, Frizzell said a setting some 15 months in the future is more realistic.
Even though the lawsuit was filed in February 2008, it essentially became a new case earlier this year after the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Frizzell's 2009 decision to grant the plaintiffs' request for class-action status, the judge said.
On behalf of the Oklahoma Department of Human Services, attorney Donald Bingham apologized for the slower-than-anticipated pace of providing pretrial "discovery" materials to the plaintiffs. His apology reiterated that made last Thursday by co-counsel David Page at a hearing before U.S. Magistrate Frank McCarthy.
McCarthy had expressed his dissatisfaction with the number of case files that had been shared with the plaintiffs, and he said that if improvements are not made, the court could issue orders that DHS might consider "draconian."
McCarthy said the approximately 44 complete case files that were supplied to the plaintiffs' lawyers
in June — as well as the more than 1,400 hours DHS devoted to the effort that month — was unacceptably low and far less than DHS had estimated it could accomplish.
Page told Frizzell on Wednesday that DHS has shared with the plaintiffs 15 more complete case files since then. As of this week, he said, 10 more employees are working full-time on the project and will continue to do so over the next two months. That will more than double the effort that was expended in June, he said.
After the initial 200 case files to be produced have been shared, another group of 200 will be assembled and disclosed to the plaintiffs.
Also, the defense received a request from the plaintiffs just this week for information pertaining to more than 200 children who they say may have been victims of abuse while in state custody. It was not clear Wednesday whether any of those children are among the 400 whose case files were already requested by the plaintiffs.
Saying DHS is not stalling, Bingham noted that since March 26 the defense has turned over more than 155,000 pages of documents that contain the sort of "systemic" information about DHS that is relevant to the plaintiffs' claims.
He did not suggest a specific trial date, advocating instead that the lawsuit progress in stages until a realistic date becomes apparent.
Lowry said a firm setting was important to the progress of the case.
In the meantime, McCarthy has asked for written updates on the discovery issues from each side by Aug. 6, with a hearing set for Aug. 10.
About the lawsuit
The lawsuit, which alleges deficiencies in the state’s foster-care system, was filed against various DHS officials in Tulsa federal court in February 2008.
The plaintiffs ask for improvements in the following areas:
Caseloads for DHS workers and supervisors.
Education and training for agency employees, foster parents and adoptive parents.
Monitoring of the safety of children in state custody.
The original plaintiffs were nine children who are alleged to have suffered in DHS placements. The case has since become a class-action lawsuit with thousands of children in DHS custody as plaintiffs.
Original Print Headline: 2011 trial date set for suit on state foster-care system
David Harper 581-8359
david.harper@tulsaworld.com
By DAVID HARPER World Staff Writer
Read more from this Tulsa World article at http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=14&articleid=20100708_14_A1_Marcia556191&archive=yes
Isabella Brooke Knightly and Austin Gamez-Knightly
In Memory of my Loving Husband, William F. Knightly Jr. Murdered by ILLEGAL Palliative Care at a Nashua, NH Hospital
Thursday, July 8, 2010
DHS denies stalling in Oklahoma foster-care case
DHS denies stalling in Oklahoma foster-care case
A federal judge has set an October 2011 trial date in a class-action lawsuit against the Oklahoma Department of Human Services alleging deficiencies in the state's foster-care system. DHS has denied stalling after case files were shared with plaintiffs at a slower pace than expected.
BY DAVID HARPER - Tulsa World 0
Published: July 8, 2010
TULSA — The trial date of well more than a year away was scheduled Wednesday in a class-action lawsuit that seeks changes in the state's foster-care system.
MORE INFO
ONLINE
"�Continuing coverage
Read past DHS
stories. newsok.com/
news/dhs
U.S. District Judge Gregory Frizzell set the trial for Oct. 17, 2011, but said the date "may be a bit ambitious” in light of the scope of the case. He told attorneys that "it will require all of your efforts” to attain the goal.
The lawsuit, brought by New York-based Children's Rights, alleges deficiencies in the state's foster-care system.
Read more: http://www.newsok.com/dhs-denies-stalling-in-oklahoma-foster-care-case/article/3474332#ixzz0t6R2bRry
A federal judge has set an October 2011 trial date in a class-action lawsuit against the Oklahoma Department of Human Services alleging deficiencies in the state's foster-care system. DHS has denied stalling after case files were shared with plaintiffs at a slower pace than expected.
BY DAVID HARPER - Tulsa World 0
Published: July 8, 2010
TULSA — The trial date of well more than a year away was scheduled Wednesday in a class-action lawsuit that seeks changes in the state's foster-care system.
MORE INFO
ONLINE
"�Continuing coverage
Read past DHS
stories. newsok.com/
news/dhs
U.S. District Judge Gregory Frizzell set the trial for Oct. 17, 2011, but said the date "may be a bit ambitious” in light of the scope of the case. He told attorneys that "it will require all of your efforts” to attain the goal.
The lawsuit, brought by New York-based Children's Rights, alleges deficiencies in the state's foster-care system.
Read more: http://www.newsok.com/dhs-denies-stalling-in-oklahoma-foster-care-case/article/3474332#ixzz0t6R2bRry
Trial date set in Oklahoma foster-care lawsuit
Trial date set in Oklahoma foster-care lawsuit
By DAVID HARPER World Staff Writer
Published: 7/7/2010 10:56 PM
Last Modified: 7/7/2010 10:57 PM
A trial date that is well more than a year away was scheduled Wednesday in a class-action lawsuit that seeks changes in the state’s foster-care system.
U.S. District Judge Gregory Frizzell set the trial for Oct. 17, 2011, but said the date “may be a bit ambitious” in light of the scope of the case. He told attorneys that “it will require all of your efforts” to attain the goal.
Marcia Robinson Lowry, one of the attorneys for the plaintiffs, had asked that the nonjury trial be scheduled for next summer. However, Frizzell said a setting some 15 months in the future is more realistic.
Even though the lawsuit was filed in February 2008, it essentially became a new case earlier this year after the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Frizzell’s 2009 decision to grant the plaintiffs’ request for class-action status, the judge said.
On behalf of the Oklahoma Department of Human Services, attorney Donald Bingham apologized for the slower-than-anticipated pace of providing pretrial “discovery” materials to the plaintiffs. His apology reiterated that made last Thursday by co-counsel David Page at a hearing before U.S. Magistrate Frank McCarthy.
McCarthy had expressed his dissatisfaction with the number of case files that had been shared with the plaintiffs, and he said that if improvements are not made, the court could issue orders that DHS might consider “draconian.”
McCarthy said the approximately 44 complete case files that were supplied to the plaintiffs’ lawyers in June — as well as the more than 1,400 hours DHS devoted to the effort that month — was unacceptably low and far less than DHS had estimated it could accomplish.
Page told Frizzell on Wednesday that DHS has shared with the plaintiffs 15 more complete case files since then. As of this week, he said, 10 more employees are working full-time on the project and will continue to do so over the next two months. That will more than double the effort that was expended in June, he said.
After the initial 200 case files to be produced have been shared, another group of 200 will be assembled and disclosed to the plaintiffs.
Also, the defense received a request from the plaintiffs just this week for information pertaining to more than 200 children who they say may have been victims of abuse while in state custody. It was not clear Wednesday whether any of those children are among the 400 whose case files were already requested by the plaintiffs.
Saying DHS is not stalling, Bingham noted that since March 26 the defense has turned over more than 155,000 pages of documents that contain the sort of “systemic” information about DHS that is relevant to the plaintiffs’ claims.
He did not suggest a specific trial date, advocating instead that the lawsuit progress in stages until a realistic date becomes apparent.
Lowry said a firm setting was important to the progress of the case.
In the meantime, McCarthy has asked for written updates on the discovery issues from each side by Aug. 6, with a hearing set for Aug. 10.
By DAVID HARPER World Staff Writer
Read more from this Tulsa World article at http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=14&articleid=20100707_11_0_Atrial29601
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=14&articleid=20100707_11_0_Atrial29601
By DAVID HARPER World Staff Writer
Published: 7/7/2010 10:56 PM
Last Modified: 7/7/2010 10:57 PM
A trial date that is well more than a year away was scheduled Wednesday in a class-action lawsuit that seeks changes in the state’s foster-care system.
U.S. District Judge Gregory Frizzell set the trial for Oct. 17, 2011, but said the date “may be a bit ambitious” in light of the scope of the case. He told attorneys that “it will require all of your efforts” to attain the goal.
Marcia Robinson Lowry, one of the attorneys for the plaintiffs, had asked that the nonjury trial be scheduled for next summer. However, Frizzell said a setting some 15 months in the future is more realistic.
Even though the lawsuit was filed in February 2008, it essentially became a new case earlier this year after the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Frizzell’s 2009 decision to grant the plaintiffs’ request for class-action status, the judge said.
On behalf of the Oklahoma Department of Human Services, attorney Donald Bingham apologized for the slower-than-anticipated pace of providing pretrial “discovery” materials to the plaintiffs. His apology reiterated that made last Thursday by co-counsel David Page at a hearing before U.S. Magistrate Frank McCarthy.
McCarthy had expressed his dissatisfaction with the number of case files that had been shared with the plaintiffs, and he said that if improvements are not made, the court could issue orders that DHS might consider “draconian.”
McCarthy said the approximately 44 complete case files that were supplied to the plaintiffs’ lawyers in June — as well as the more than 1,400 hours DHS devoted to the effort that month — was unacceptably low and far less than DHS had estimated it could accomplish.
Page told Frizzell on Wednesday that DHS has shared with the plaintiffs 15 more complete case files since then. As of this week, he said, 10 more employees are working full-time on the project and will continue to do so over the next two months. That will more than double the effort that was expended in June, he said.
After the initial 200 case files to be produced have been shared, another group of 200 will be assembled and disclosed to the plaintiffs.
Also, the defense received a request from the plaintiffs just this week for information pertaining to more than 200 children who they say may have been victims of abuse while in state custody. It was not clear Wednesday whether any of those children are among the 400 whose case files were already requested by the plaintiffs.
Saying DHS is not stalling, Bingham noted that since March 26 the defense has turned over more than 155,000 pages of documents that contain the sort of “systemic” information about DHS that is relevant to the plaintiffs’ claims.
He did not suggest a specific trial date, advocating instead that the lawsuit progress in stages until a realistic date becomes apparent.
Lowry said a firm setting was important to the progress of the case.
In the meantime, McCarthy has asked for written updates on the discovery issues from each side by Aug. 6, with a hearing set for Aug. 10.
By DAVID HARPER World Staff Writer
Read more from this Tulsa World article at http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=14&articleid=20100707_11_0_Atrial29601
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=14&articleid=20100707_11_0_Atrial29601
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
Pro-Abortion Group Wants Pregnancy Centers Removed From Internet Directories
Pro-Abortion Group Wants Pregnancy Centers Removed From Internet Directories
by Steven Ertelt
LifeNews.com Editor
July 1, 2010
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- They say they support choice, but the pro-abortion activists at NARAL want to leave women in unplanned pregnancy situations with one option: abortion. In a letter to its members today, NARAL president Nancy Keenan announced she is asking two Internet directories to remove pregnancy center listings.
If NARAL is successful, that means millions of people who visit the two prominent directories every year will not see listings for pregnancy centers that provide women with abortion alternatives.
"Today, my team sent our letter with more than 59,000 signatures to YellowPages.com and SuperPages.com asking them to remove misleading CPC ads from their sites," Keenan said this afternoon. "But anti-choice CPCs are still blanketing buses, billboards, and even the airwaves with their falsehoods."
LifeNews.com has contacted but not received a response from representatives of both directories to determine whether they will bend to NARAL's pressure to remove these pro-woman agencies from their listings.
Even if NARAL is successful in censoring information about pregnancy help centers in the directories, they want to go further.
"Now we must take the next step. We need a federal bill to put an end to deceptive CPC ads everywhere," Keenan said, using false claims to support such a bill. "Many CPCs do whatever it takes to block women from choosing abortion. We've heard it all: lies about abortion and condoms, guilt-trips, and harassing follow-up phone calls."
Keenan is promoting the so-called Stop Deceptive Advertising for Women's Services Act, filed by pro-abortion Rep. Carolyn Maloney, a New York Democrat, in the U.S. House. The measure would have the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) fine pregnancy centers for supposedly engaging in false advertising.
"My heart sinks every time I hear about a woman who was forced to hear lies and lectures from a CPC when what she needed was the truth. The Stop Deceptive Advertising for Women's Services Act can protect women seeking real health care from being tricked into going to an anti-choice CPC," Keenan says.
Kristin Hansen, the vice president for communications at Care Net, a national network of more than 1,100 pregnancy centers, talked with LifeNews.com last month about other NARAL attacks on pregnancy centers.
"Abortion advocacy groups like NARAL have been working hard this year to perpetuate the 'boogeyman' idea that the work of pregnancy centers is harming women," she said.
"Every day, there’s a new blog post, video, 'undercover report,' or now, here’s a flashy quiz to help build an email list and raise money. These scare tactics are riddled with false accusations and are meant to deter women from visiting pregnancy centers for help," she added.
As a response, Care Net released its own REAL Quiz about Pregnancy Centers to counter NARAL's negativity with the truth.
Hansen says most pregnancy center clients appreciate the help and support and the ones speaking out against such centers are typically pro-abortion staffers and volunteers claiming to have been treated poorly.
"If you take a closer look, you see that the negative information about pregnancy centers comes from the same people who are usually a staff person, volunteer, or member of an abortion advocacy group. The complaints do not come from actual clients, who regularly give high approval ratings of the pregnancy center they visited," she said.
The attacks may be backfiring as Care Net is expanding its outreach to new communities.
"Despite these ongoing attacks from NARAL, a growing number of people are getting excited about the compassionate work of pregnancy centers. Care Net sees wonderful doors opening this year as more community leaders are stepping up to open new pregnancy centers in cities where there are few or none," Hansen said.
"Every day, someone’s heart is touched with the vision of reaching out to women facing unplanned pregnancies with practical help and emotional support. There's no new mean-spirited quiz or negative campaign that can prevent the growth of this positive movement in the hearts of volunteers across America," she concluded.
ACTION: Contact the directors at http://www.yellowpages.com/about/contact-us and http://www.superpages.com/about/feedback.html and tell them to ignore NARAL's request to remove pregnancy center ads.
Related web sites:
Care Net - http://www.care-net.org
CareNet Quiz - http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/realquizaboutpregnancycenters
http://www.lifenews.com/nat6489.html
by Steven Ertelt
LifeNews.com Editor
July 1, 2010
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- They say they support choice, but the pro-abortion activists at NARAL want to leave women in unplanned pregnancy situations with one option: abortion. In a letter to its members today, NARAL president Nancy Keenan announced she is asking two Internet directories to remove pregnancy center listings.
If NARAL is successful, that means millions of people who visit the two prominent directories every year will not see listings for pregnancy centers that provide women with abortion alternatives.
"Today, my team sent our letter with more than 59,000 signatures to YellowPages.com and SuperPages.com asking them to remove misleading CPC ads from their sites," Keenan said this afternoon. "But anti-choice CPCs are still blanketing buses, billboards, and even the airwaves with their falsehoods."
LifeNews.com has contacted but not received a response from representatives of both directories to determine whether they will bend to NARAL's pressure to remove these pro-woman agencies from their listings.
Even if NARAL is successful in censoring information about pregnancy help centers in the directories, they want to go further.
"Now we must take the next step. We need a federal bill to put an end to deceptive CPC ads everywhere," Keenan said, using false claims to support such a bill. "Many CPCs do whatever it takes to block women from choosing abortion. We've heard it all: lies about abortion and condoms, guilt-trips, and harassing follow-up phone calls."
Keenan is promoting the so-called Stop Deceptive Advertising for Women's Services Act, filed by pro-abortion Rep. Carolyn Maloney, a New York Democrat, in the U.S. House. The measure would have the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) fine pregnancy centers for supposedly engaging in false advertising.
"My heart sinks every time I hear about a woman who was forced to hear lies and lectures from a CPC when what she needed was the truth. The Stop Deceptive Advertising for Women's Services Act can protect women seeking real health care from being tricked into going to an anti-choice CPC," Keenan says.
Kristin Hansen, the vice president for communications at Care Net, a national network of more than 1,100 pregnancy centers, talked with LifeNews.com last month about other NARAL attacks on pregnancy centers.
"Abortion advocacy groups like NARAL have been working hard this year to perpetuate the 'boogeyman' idea that the work of pregnancy centers is harming women," she said.
"Every day, there’s a new blog post, video, 'undercover report,' or now, here’s a flashy quiz to help build an email list and raise money. These scare tactics are riddled with false accusations and are meant to deter women from visiting pregnancy centers for help," she added.
As a response, Care Net released its own REAL Quiz about Pregnancy Centers to counter NARAL's negativity with the truth.
Hansen says most pregnancy center clients appreciate the help and support and the ones speaking out against such centers are typically pro-abortion staffers and volunteers claiming to have been treated poorly.
"If you take a closer look, you see that the negative information about pregnancy centers comes from the same people who are usually a staff person, volunteer, or member of an abortion advocacy group. The complaints do not come from actual clients, who regularly give high approval ratings of the pregnancy center they visited," she said.
The attacks may be backfiring as Care Net is expanding its outreach to new communities.
"Despite these ongoing attacks from NARAL, a growing number of people are getting excited about the compassionate work of pregnancy centers. Care Net sees wonderful doors opening this year as more community leaders are stepping up to open new pregnancy centers in cities where there are few or none," Hansen said.
"Every day, someone’s heart is touched with the vision of reaching out to women facing unplanned pregnancies with practical help and emotional support. There's no new mean-spirited quiz or negative campaign that can prevent the growth of this positive movement in the hearts of volunteers across America," she concluded.
ACTION: Contact the directors at http://www.yellowpages.com/about/contact-us and http://www.superpages.com/about/feedback.html and tell them to ignore NARAL's request to remove pregnancy center ads.
Related web sites:
Care Net - http://www.care-net.org
CareNet Quiz - http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/realquizaboutpregnancycenters
http://www.lifenews.com/nat6489.html
Appeals Court Reinstates Case Against Planned Parenthood Over Massive Fraud
Appeals Court Reinstates Case Against Planned Parenthood Over Massive Fraud
by Steven Ertelt
LifeNews.com Editor
July 2, 2010
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has reinstated the lawsuit filed by a former vice president of a Planned Parenthood abortion business affiliate in California. The case details allegations of massive fraud where the abortion giant overbilled state officials.
P. Victor Gonzalez says the abortion business fired him because he raised concerns about illegal practices of overcharging the state hundreds of millions of dollars on birth control.
The former Planned Parenthood official filed a lawsuit in March 2008 but, in January 2009, a federal district court judge dismissed the case and Gonzalez filed an appeal.
Represented by the American Center for Law and Justice, Gonzalez is now considered a federal whistleblower.
“This is a tremendous victory,” Jay Sekulow, the ACLJ chief counsel, told LifeNews.com after the decision.
“While this case is by no means over, winning this appeal means we have gotten the federal claim over the threshold hurdles and can now get down to the heart of this case: the alleged fraud," he explained.
Gonzalez says his own internal audit estimates that Planned Parenthood overcharged California taxpayers for purchasing birth control by at least $180 million.
He was the vice president of finance and administration for Planned Parenthood of Los Angles and, according to a Los Angeles Times report, the overbilling began in the late 1990s.
While other public health facilities and private facilities charged the state between $8 and $9 for a cycle of birth control pills, Planned Parenthood charged almost $12. The Planned Parenthood charge to the California government was several times more than it paid for the drugs originally.
Gonzalez alleges that other California-based Planned Parenthood affiliates and Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California knowingly engaged in a scheme to defraud state and federal taxpayers by deliberately over-billing the Medi-Cal program.
Judge A. Howard Matz dismissed Gonzalez’s suit in October 2008 and he ruled that Gonzalez did not qualify as a whistleblower under federal law because he was not the "original source" of the data exposing the fraud. As a result, he said his court lacked jurisdiction in the suit.
The federal False Claims Act (FCA) forbids government contractors from submitting “false or fraudulent” claims for payment. The FCA also authorizes private individuals to bring suit against the offenders to recover the fraudulently obtained funds.
The allegation in this case is that PP affiliates in California illegally marked up the supposed cost of various birth control drugs when seeking government reimbursement, resulting in tens of millions of dollars of overbilling – at taxpayer expense. State audits in both California and Washington State have found PP affiliates guilty of overbilling.
When Gonzalez sued Planned Parenthood, a prominent law firm began representing the abortion business at no cost to the defendants and asked the federal district court to dismiss the case on technical jurisdictional grounds.
The federal district court accepted their arguments in part, and dismissed the case. ACLJ attorneys then entered the case to handle the appeal.
“The question on appeal was whether the former PP employee is a proper whistleblower under the False Claims Act,” said Sekulow. “We contended that the answer is ‘Yes,’ and now a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit has unanimously agreed with us.”
According to the Los Angeles Times, Planned Parenthood overbilling occurred until state Sen. Hannah-Beth Jackson of Santa Barbara sponsored legislation allowing Planned Parenthood to charge more based on concerns the abortion business presented her that it would suffer financial problems without it.
However, altering the statute didn't address the billing practices prior to it and a 2003 state audit found at least $5.2 million in overbilling in 2003 alone from just one of the nine California Planned Parenthood affiliates.
Medi-Cal officials first noticed the problems in 1997 and Planned Parenthood received two separate letters at that time pointing out the problems.
State officials now say Planned Parenthood was given conflicting information on billing practices. They say Planned Parenthood does not need to repay the millions it overcharged state taxpayers.
Still, Gonzalez wants the abortion business to be held accountable for firing him abruptly on March 9, 2004 for doing his job and pointing out that it was breaking the law.
In its legal papers, ACLJ notes a California Department of Health Services audit in 2004 found more than $5 million in egregious over-billing in two years by the San Diego/Riverside Planned Parenthood affiliate.
In the reply brief filed with the appeals court on September 25th, the ACLJ counters arguments that the Planned Parenthood affiliates made in their own brief on appeal. In particular, the ACLJ brief takes Planned Parenthood to task for “misrepresenting” the record in the case and for “improperly” trying to inject new materials into the case on appeal.
This is a very complicated, highly technical area of the law,” noted Sekulow.
“There is no way an ordinary citizen, no matter how just the claim or how egregious the fraud, could afford to take on a prominent law firm in a complex area of the law like this. We're very pleased that the ACLJ was available to provide the high-powered analysis a case like this calls for,” he told LifeNews.com.
Related web sites:
ACLJ - http://www.ACLJ.org
http://www.lifenews.com/state5226.html
by Steven Ertelt
LifeNews.com Editor
July 2, 2010
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has reinstated the lawsuit filed by a former vice president of a Planned Parenthood abortion business affiliate in California. The case details allegations of massive fraud where the abortion giant overbilled state officials.
P. Victor Gonzalez says the abortion business fired him because he raised concerns about illegal practices of overcharging the state hundreds of millions of dollars on birth control.
The former Planned Parenthood official filed a lawsuit in March 2008 but, in January 2009, a federal district court judge dismissed the case and Gonzalez filed an appeal.
Represented by the American Center for Law and Justice, Gonzalez is now considered a federal whistleblower.
“This is a tremendous victory,” Jay Sekulow, the ACLJ chief counsel, told LifeNews.com after the decision.
“While this case is by no means over, winning this appeal means we have gotten the federal claim over the threshold hurdles and can now get down to the heart of this case: the alleged fraud," he explained.
Gonzalez says his own internal audit estimates that Planned Parenthood overcharged California taxpayers for purchasing birth control by at least $180 million.
He was the vice president of finance and administration for Planned Parenthood of Los Angles and, according to a Los Angeles Times report, the overbilling began in the late 1990s.
While other public health facilities and private facilities charged the state between $8 and $9 for a cycle of birth control pills, Planned Parenthood charged almost $12. The Planned Parenthood charge to the California government was several times more than it paid for the drugs originally.
Gonzalez alleges that other California-based Planned Parenthood affiliates and Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California knowingly engaged in a scheme to defraud state and federal taxpayers by deliberately over-billing the Medi-Cal program.
Judge A. Howard Matz dismissed Gonzalez’s suit in October 2008 and he ruled that Gonzalez did not qualify as a whistleblower under federal law because he was not the "original source" of the data exposing the fraud. As a result, he said his court lacked jurisdiction in the suit.
The federal False Claims Act (FCA) forbids government contractors from submitting “false or fraudulent” claims for payment. The FCA also authorizes private individuals to bring suit against the offenders to recover the fraudulently obtained funds.
The allegation in this case is that PP affiliates in California illegally marked up the supposed cost of various birth control drugs when seeking government reimbursement, resulting in tens of millions of dollars of overbilling – at taxpayer expense. State audits in both California and Washington State have found PP affiliates guilty of overbilling.
When Gonzalez sued Planned Parenthood, a prominent law firm began representing the abortion business at no cost to the defendants and asked the federal district court to dismiss the case on technical jurisdictional grounds.
The federal district court accepted their arguments in part, and dismissed the case. ACLJ attorneys then entered the case to handle the appeal.
“The question on appeal was whether the former PP employee is a proper whistleblower under the False Claims Act,” said Sekulow. “We contended that the answer is ‘Yes,’ and now a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit has unanimously agreed with us.”
According to the Los Angeles Times, Planned Parenthood overbilling occurred until state Sen. Hannah-Beth Jackson of Santa Barbara sponsored legislation allowing Planned Parenthood to charge more based on concerns the abortion business presented her that it would suffer financial problems without it.
However, altering the statute didn't address the billing practices prior to it and a 2003 state audit found at least $5.2 million in overbilling in 2003 alone from just one of the nine California Planned Parenthood affiliates.
Medi-Cal officials first noticed the problems in 1997 and Planned Parenthood received two separate letters at that time pointing out the problems.
State officials now say Planned Parenthood was given conflicting information on billing practices. They say Planned Parenthood does not need to repay the millions it overcharged state taxpayers.
Still, Gonzalez wants the abortion business to be held accountable for firing him abruptly on March 9, 2004 for doing his job and pointing out that it was breaking the law.
In its legal papers, ACLJ notes a California Department of Health Services audit in 2004 found more than $5 million in egregious over-billing in two years by the San Diego/Riverside Planned Parenthood affiliate.
In the reply brief filed with the appeals court on September 25th, the ACLJ counters arguments that the Planned Parenthood affiliates made in their own brief on appeal. In particular, the ACLJ brief takes Planned Parenthood to task for “misrepresenting” the record in the case and for “improperly” trying to inject new materials into the case on appeal.
This is a very complicated, highly technical area of the law,” noted Sekulow.
“There is no way an ordinary citizen, no matter how just the claim or how egregious the fraud, could afford to take on a prominent law firm in a complex area of the law like this. We're very pleased that the ACLJ was available to provide the high-powered analysis a case like this calls for,” he told LifeNews.com.
Related web sites:
ACLJ - http://www.ACLJ.org
http://www.lifenews.com/state5226.html
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)