New Hampshire False Claims Act
New Hampshire Whistleblower Laws
New Hampshire Insurance Claims Fraud Prevention Act
It is imperative that you speak with a whistleblower law firm about your rights as a New Hampshire whistleblower. The statutes listed here may not be up to date or may be enforced differently than written. Also, there are many procedural hurdles to properly file a New Hampshire False Claims Act lawsuit, and if you don’t follow them you may lose your case before it even begins.
Highlights of the New Hampshire False Claims Act:
New Hampshire Whistleblower Awards – Here’s what you can potentially receive as a New Hampshire Whistleblower commencing a New Hampshire False Claims Act (FCA) lawsuit (awards vary depending on whether the government intervenes or not):
- New Hampshire False Claims Act Qui Tam Intervened Relator’s Award: 15% to 25% of the state’s Medicaid recovery.
- New Hampshire False Claims Act Qui Tam Non-Intervened Relator’s Award: 25% to 30% of the state’s Medicaid recovery
- Whistleblower awards are based on a variety of factors including but not limited to how useful the whistleblower’s information was, cooperation of the whistleblower and their counsel, and length of time the relator knew about the information and did not blow the whistle.
New Hampshire Whistleblower Statutory Penalties – Defendants who violate this statute by committing New Hampshire Medicaid fraud or other fraud against the government may be liable for:
- TRIPLE DAMAGES
- Fines ranging from $5,000 to $10,000
Frequent Asked Questions regarding how to blow the whistle in New Hampshire:
Q. As a New Hampshire whistleblower am I protected from retaliation?
A. Yes, the New Hampshire False Claims Act protects employees from employer retaliation as a result of their whistleblowing.
Q. Will my employer find out if I file a New Hampshire Qui Tam Action? When?
A. All False Claims Act lawsuits are initially filed under seal so the defendant is unaware that it is being sued. This allows the government time to investigate the case. Often New Hampshire Qui Tam actions are filed in conjunction with Federal False Claims Act (FCA) actions and it can take years for the case to be unsealed or for your employer to learn about the action. It is critical not to delay and to consult with a New Hampshire Whistleblower law firm as soon as possible.
New Hampshire False Claims Act
The New Hampshire False Claims Act allows whistleblowers to bring suit in the name of the State of New Hampshire where a wrongdoer engages in conduct that defrauds the state or local governments of taxpayer dollars. The law is a broad reaching statute designed to address an array of wrongdoing from health care fraud to fraud involving any type of government contract or business relationship involving state or local money.
167:61-b False Claims Against the Department; Definitions.
- Any person shall be liable to the state for a civil penalty of not less than $5,000 and not more than $10,000, plus 3 times the amount of damages that the state sustains because of the act of that person, who:
(a) Knowingly presents, or causes to be presented, to an officer or employee of the department, a false or fraudulent claim for payment or approval.
(b) Knowingly makes, uses, or causes to be made or used, a false record or statement to get a false or fraudulent claim paid or approved by the department.
(c) Conspires to defraud the department by getting a false or fraudulent claim allowed or paid.
(d) Has possession, custody, or control of property or money used, or to be used, by the department and, intending to defraud the department or willfully to conceal the property, delivers, or causes to be delivered, less property than the amount for which the person receives a certificate or receipt.
(e) Knowingly makes, uses, or causes to be made or used, a false record or statement to conceal, avoid, or decrease an obligation to pay or transmit money or property to the department.
(f) Is a beneficiary of an inadvertent submission of a false claim to the department, who subsequently discovers the falsity of the claim, and fails to disclose the false claim to the department within a reasonable time after discovery of the false claim.
- (a) Notwithstanding the damages provisions of paragraph I, the court may assess not less than 2 or more than 3 times the amount of damages that the state sustains because of the act of the person and no civil penalty, if the court finds that a person who has violated paragraph I:
(1) Furnished officials of the state responsible for investigating false claims violations with all information known to the person about the violation within 30 days after the date on which the defendant first obtained the information;
(2) Fully cooperated with any state investigation of such violation; and
(3) At the time the person furnished the state with the information about the violation, no criminal prosecution, civil action, or administrative action had commenced under this chapter with respect to such violation, and the person did not have actual knowledge of the existence of an investigation into such violation.
(b) A person violating paragraph I shall also be liable to the state for the costs and attorneys’ fees arising from any civil action brought to recover the penalty or damages.
III. Liability under this section shall be joint and several for any act committed by 2 or more persons.
- This section shall not apply to any controversy involving damages to the department of less than $5,000 in value. For purposes of this paragraph, “controversy” means the aggregate of any one or more false claims submitted by the same person.
- In RSA 167:61-b through RSA 167:61-e:
(a) “Claim” means any request or demand, whether under a contract or otherwise, for money or property that is made to an officer, employee, agent, or other representative of the department or to a contractor, grantee, or other person, if the department provides any portion of the money or property that is requested or demanded, or if the department will reimburse the contractor, grantee, or other recipient for any portion of the money or property that is requested or demanded.
(b) (1) “Knowing” and “knowingly” means that a person, with respect to information:
(A) Has actual knowledge of the information;
(B) Acts in deliberate ignorance of the truth or falsity of the information; or
(C) Acts in reckless disregard of the truth or falsity of the information.
(2) No proof of specific intent to defraud is required for an act to be knowing.
(c) “Original source” means an individual who has direct and independent knowledge of the information on which the allegations are based and has voluntarily provided the information to the state before filing an action under RSA 167:61-c that is based on the information, and whose information provided the basis or catalyst for the investigation, hearing, audit, or report that led to the public disclosure.
(d) “Person” means any natural person, corporation, firm, association, organization, partnership, business, or trust.
(e) “Relator” means an individual who brings an action under RSA 167:61-c.
- In any action brought under RSA 167:61-c, the state shall be required to prove all essential elements of the cause of action, including damages, by a preponderance of the evidence.
VII. An action for false claims under RSA 167:61-c shall not be brought:
(a) More than 6 years after the date on which the violation of RSA 167:61-b is committed; or
(b) More than 3 years after the date when facts material to the right of action are known or reasonably should have been known by the official within the office of the attorney general charged with responsibility to act in the circumstances, but in no event more than 10 years after the date on which the violation is committed, whichever occurs last.
<[RSA 167:61-c effective January 1, 2005.]>
167:61-c Actions by Attorney General and Private Persons.
- The attorney general shall investigate violations under RSA 167:61-b. If the attorney general finds that a person has violated or is violating RSA 167:61-b, the attorney general may bring a civil action in superior court against the person.
II.(a) An individual, hereafter referred to as “relator,” may bring a civil action for a violation of RSA 167:61-b, I on behalf of the relator and for the state. The action shall be brought in the name of the state.
(b) When a relator brings an action under this section, no person other than the state may intervene or bring a related action based on the facts underlying the pending action. (c) A copy of the complaint and written disclosure of substantially all material evidence and information the relator possesses shall be served on the state in accordance with the New Hampshire rules of civil procedure. The complaint shall be filed in camera, shall remain under seal for at least 60 days, and shall not be served on the defendant until the court so orders. The state may elect to intervene and proceed with the action within 60 days after it receives both the complaint and the material evidence and information.
(d) The state may, for good cause shown, move the court for one or more extensions of the 60-day time period during which the complaint shall remain under seal. Any such motion may be supported by affidavits or other submissions filed under seal.
(e) Before the expiration of the 60-day period or any extension obtained, the state shall:
(1) Proceed with the action, in which case the action shall be conducted by the state; or
(2) Notify the court that it declines to take over the action, in which case the action shall be dismissed.
III. The defendant shall not be required to respond to any complaint filed under this section until after the complaint is unsealed and served upon the defendant in accordance with the New Hampshire rules of civil procedure.
- Notwithstanding any provision of RSA 275-E to the contrary, any employee who is discharged, demoted, suspended, threatened, harassed, or in any other manner discriminated against in the terms and conditions of employment by his or her employer because of lawful acts done by the employee on behalf of the employee or others in furtherance of an action under this section, including investigation for, initiation of, testimony for, or assistance in an action filed or to be filed under this section, shall be entitled to all relief necessary to make the employee whole. Such relief shall include reinstatement with the same seniority status such employee would have had but for the discrimination, 2 times the amount of back pay, interest on the back pay, and compensation for any special damages sustained as a result of the discrimination, including litigation costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees. An employee may bring an action in the superior court for the relief provided in this paragraph. For purposes of this paragraph, “employee” has the same meaning as in RSA 275-E:1, I.
<[RSA 167:61-d effective January 1, 2005.]>
167:61-d Rights of Parties to Actions.
- If the state proceeds with an action under RSA 167:61-c, the state shall have the primary responsibility for prosecuting the action and shall not be bound by an act of the relator bringing the action. The relator shall have the right to continue as a party to the action, subject to the following limitations:
(a) The state may dismiss the action notwithstanding the objections of the relator initiating the action if the court determines, after a hearing on the motion, that dismissal should be allowed.
(b) The state may settle the action with the defendant notwithstanding the objections of the relator initiating the action if the court determines, after a hearing, that the proposed settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable under all the circumstances. Upon a showing of good cause, the hearing may be held in camera.
- Notwithstanding RSA 167:61-c, the state may elect to pursue its claim through any alternate remedy available to the state, including any administrative proceeding to determine a civil monetary penalty. If any such alternate remedy is pursued in another proceeding, the relator initiating the action shall have the same rights in the proceeding as the relator would have had if the action had continued under this section. Any finding of fact or conclusion of law made in such other proceeding that has become final shall be conclusive on all parties to an action under this section.
III. The parties to the action shall receive court approval of any settlements reached.
<[RSA 167:61-e effective January 1, 2005.]>
167:61-e Award to Relator.
- If the state proceeds with an action brought by a relator under RSA 167:61-c, the relator shall, except as otherwise provided in this paragraph, receive at least 15 percent but not more than 25 percent of the proceeds of the action or settlement of the claim, depending upon the extent to which the relator substantially contributed to the prosecution of the action. Where the action is one that the court finds to be based primarily on disclosures of specific information, other than information provided by the relator bringing the action, relating to allegations or transactions in a criminal, civil, or administrative hearing, in a legislative or administrative report, hearing, audit, or investigation, or from the news media, the court may award sums as it considers appropriate, but in no case more than 10 percent of the proceeds, taking into account the significance of the information furnished by the relator and the role of the relator bringing the action in advancing the case to litigation. Any payment to a relator under this paragraph shall be made from the proceeds. The relator shall also receive an amount for reasonable expenses that the court finds to have been necessarily incurred, plus reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. All expenses, fees, and costs shall be awarded against the defendant.
- If the court finds that the action was brought by a relator who planned and initiated the violation of RSA 167:61-b upon which the action was brought, then the court may, to the extent the court considers appropriate, reduce the share of the proceeds of the action that the relator would otherwise receive under paragraph I, taking into account the role of the relator in advancing the case to litigation and any relevant circumstances pertaining to the violation. If the relator bringing the action is convicted of criminal conduct arising from the relator’s role in the violation of RSA 167:61-b, the relator shall be dismissed from the civil action and shall not receive any share of the proceeds of the action. The dismissal shall not prejudice the right of the state to continue the action represented by the attorney general.
III. No court shall have jurisdiction over an action brought under RSA 167:61-c:
(a) Against any department official or any division, board, bureau, commission or agency within the department;
(b) When the relator is a present or former employee of the state and the action is based upon information discovered by the employee during the course of the employee’s employment, unless the employee first, in good faith, exhausted any existing internal procedures for reporting and seeking recovery of the falsely claimed sums through official channels and the state failed to act on the information provided within a reasonable period of time;
(c) That is based upon allegations or transactions that are the subject of a civil or criminal investigation, civil suit, or an administrative civil money penalty proceeding, in which the state is already a party; or
(d) That is based upon the public disclosure of allegations or transactions in a criminal, civil, or administrative hearing, in a legislative or administrative report, hearing, audit, or investigation, or from the news media, unless the action is brought by the attorney general or the relator bringing the action is an original source of the information.
- The state shall not be liable for expenses or fees, including attorneys’ fees, that a relator incurs in bringing an action under RSA 167:61-c and shall not elect to pay those expenses or fees.
Any leading whistleblower law firm tackling the tens of billions of dollars stolen from the
FThe Anti-Kickback Statute, 42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7b(b) (the “AKS”), prohibits the payment of kickbacks in any
The False Claim Act, also referred to as the “Lincoln Law,” is a very well-known
The Small Business Administration (“SBA”) recently announced that it has identified over $80 billion in
The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, commonly known as HIPAA, is intended to protect
100 Million Dollar Settlement Fund for Women Injured by a New Birth Control Product
Jason T. Brown was the first attorney in the country to file a battery of cases on behalf of women who sustained blood clots, such as deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolisms, strokes and death from a new Birth control Product. Jason T. Brown’s prior firm was on the PSC (Plaintiff Steering Committee) and served as liaison counsel in the state mass tort action. The firm is no longer accepting new cases.
Tens of Millions in Settlements for Mass Tort Injuries and Class Actions
$7 Million Plus Settlement for Consumer Fraud
$7 Million Dollar Commercial Litigation Settlement
Millions in Settlements for Women Injured by New Generation Hormonal Product
Women who sustained blood clots from a new Generation Hormonal Product received and continue to receive compensation for their injuries. Compensable injuries include Pulmonary Embolisms (PE), Deep-Vein Thrombosis (DVT), Strokes and Death. The firm is still investigating and accepting cases.
Nationwide $3.5 Million Settlement for Wage & Hour Class Action Case
Case brought on behalf of at home call center workers who were not paid for all their time worked including boot up time, technical time and other time. Workers were told by the company that boot up time which lasted 15 minutes or more was not paid because it was considered their commute to work. Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
$3.2 Million Settlement for Wage & Hour Class Action Case
Case brought on behalf of workers who were misclassified as salaried exempt from overtime. The employer led employees to believe that they had to work unlimited hours over 40 without overtime compensation even though based on their job duties it was alleged they were entitled to overtime pay.
$2.4 Million Dollar Settlement for Wage & Hour Class Action
Lawsuit was brought as a class action on behalf of workers who worked in excess of 40 hours a week and were not paid overtime. The employer was forcing them to work “off the clock” for those hours and failed to pay proper overtime compensation.
$2 Million Dollar Settlement for False Claims Act (Whistleblower Case)
“$2 Million Dollar False Claims Act (FCA) Settlement – Unnecessary Services”
A case against GenomeDx was brought alleging violations of the False Claims Act (FCA) and the California Insurance Claims Fraud Prevention Act regarding unnecessary services such as the testing of tissues that did not need to be tested. The case resulted in a $350,000 whistleblower award.
$2 Million Dollar Settlement for Truck Accident Victim
Our firm was Of Counsel to a serious truck accident case involving a trucking accident with multiple injuries.
Nationwide $1.3 Million Judgment against Future Income Payments and Scott Kohn for Consumer Fraud
Scott Kohn and Future Income Payments conspired to defraud veterans out of their hard earned pensions by offering them loans at loanshark rates and claiming it was a “purchase” not a loan.
$1.7 Million Dollar Settlement for Wage & Hour Case
Misclassified employees under the FLSA were not paid overtime for hours worked in excess of 40. Due to a confidentiality agreement specific details are intentionally omitted.
Judgment with Maximum Damages for Employment Litigation
Judgment for misclassification under the FLSA including maximum damages under State and Federal Laws, plus an incentive fee for the lead plaintiff with attorney fees paid separately. The case involved a worker who was paid a day rate regardless of the amount of hours worked per day and per week.
Class Action Jury Trial
Workers alleged that they were misclassified according to their job duties. The Defendant claimed an administrative exemption under the FLSA and state law. Misclassification cases under the FLSA are the cases most often tried due to non-monetary considerations. Jury Trial lasted three weeks. Settlement offered in lieu of appeal.
Acquittal at Trial
Despite videotaped evidence that the prosecutor alleged incriminated the defendant, Mr. Brown was able to obtain an acquittal at trial for his client. Please note, that while we, the Brown, LLC will provide consultations in defense matters, the firm spends most of its time litigating complex litigation such as class actions, mass torts and catastrophic injuries.
Judgment with Maximum Damages for Wage & Hour Dispute
Wage & Hour dispute on behalf of hourly employees who were not paid time and a half for hours in excess of 40. Employees were granted double damages for all their time with attorney fees and costs paid separately.
Million Dollar Settlement for Wage & Hour Class Action Case
Workers were compelled to come into work 15 minutes early to set up, but were not paid for their set up time. Gap issues aside, workers received double damages for the time worked for 3 years’ worth of pay with attorney fees paid separately.
This is a non-exhaustive list of prior results and successes of Jason T. Brown and the Brown, LLC. Past results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
For more information about each award see Awards & Accolades – All cases involve Jason T. Brown and/ or Brown, LLC
No aspect of this advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court of New Jersey.
Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.