Advocates for Justice

Potential whistleblowers are sometimes afraid that if they bring their employer’s fraudulent scheme to light, the government will come after them for being involved in the fraud. While certainly possible, it is exceptionally rare. After all, the vast majority of money recovered by the federal government in False Claims Act cases comes from cases initiated by whistleblowers; scaring off whistleblowers would not be good business for the Department of Justice.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday announced that it will review a Seventh Circuit decision finding income from $13.3 million given to employees was taxable.

Direct to consumer genetic testing promises that with a couple dollars and a test tube filled with saliva, anyone has the power to look inside their DNA to assess health risks. In contrast to a traditional genetic test performed and interpreted by a physician, a direct to consumer (DTC) genetic test allows individuals to test themselves and bypass the physician and insurance provider.

Lyme disease is the most common tick-borne disease in the United States. Diagnosis and treatment stir confusion and controversy among patients, doctors, and alternative care providers. Some have capitalized on this confusion, creating a market for laboratory developed tests to diagnose the disease.

Defendants often cite Carter v. Prime Healthcare Paradise Valley LLC (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 396 in support of their argument that the plaintiff’s complaint pleads a cause of action for professional negligence rather than elder abuse.  Defendants often argue that Carter, in effect, altered the law and heightened the pleading requirements for an elder abuse cause of action.  In making this argument, however, defendants misinterpret the Carter holding.  The Carter court did not modify the elements or the pleading requirements for elder abuse under California’s Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act.  In fact, the Carter court stated that it “distill[s]” the requirements of an elder abuse case.  The Carter decision did not, however, increase or enhance Plaintiff’s pleading requirements.  Id. at 406.