Listen to the article
A Massachusetts man convicted of drug crimes has been denied any portion of a $6.5 million settlement that the federal government secured from Bournewood Health Systems in a False Claims Act case.
David Perry, who filed a whistleblower lawsuit against the behavioral health organization in 2021, sought more than $1 million as his share of the settlement reached earlier this year. Judge William G. Young of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts ruled that Perry’s participation in the alleged fraud scheme and his criminal record disqualify him from receiving any compensation.
Perry’s lawsuit alleged that Bournewood engaged in an elaborate kickback operation that defrauded federal healthcare programs. The case culminated in a substantial settlement agreement in 2024, with Bournewood agreeing to pay $6.5 million to resolve the allegations without admitting liability.
Under the False Claims Act, whistleblowers (also known as “relators”) can typically receive between 15% and 30% of recovered funds when the government intervenes in their cases. However, the law also contains provisions that limit or eliminate awards for individuals who played active roles in the fraudulent conduct they later expose.
The court determined that Perry’s involvement in the very kickback scheme he reported was significant enough to bar him from benefiting financially from the settlement. Judge Young emphasized in his ruling that allowing Perry to profit from the litigation would effectively reward him for participating in fraud against government programs.
Healthcare fraud cases under the False Claims Act have become increasingly common in recent years, with the Department of Justice recovering billions annually from providers alleged to have violated federal regulations. Kickback schemes—where healthcare providers offer or receive compensation for patient referrals—are particularly targeted because they can lead to unnecessary services, increased costs to taxpayers, and compromised patient care.
Bournewood Health Systems, which operates several behavioral health facilities in Massachusetts, provides treatment for substance use disorders and mental health conditions. The settlement represents one of the larger recent recoveries in the behavioral health sector, highlighting the government’s ongoing focus on fraud in this growing healthcare segment.
Legal experts note that this case illustrates the “unclean hands” principle that courts often apply in whistleblower cases. “The law is designed to incentivize individuals to report fraud, but not to reward those who substantially participated in it,” explained healthcare attorney Jennifer Russano, who was not involved in the case. “Courts typically look at the extent of the whistleblower’s involvement and whether they were an architect of the scheme versus a more passive participant.”
The Department of Justice has increasingly scrutinized relationships between healthcare providers and referral sources, particularly in treatment-intensive sectors like behavioral health, where patients may require ongoing care and generate significant reimbursements from Medicare, Medicaid, and other federal programs.
For whistleblowers without direct involvement in fraud schemes, the financial incentives remain substantial. In fiscal year 2023 alone, whistleblowers received more than $335 million in awards from successful False Claims Act cases, according to DOJ statistics.
The Bournewood settlement underscores both the effectiveness of whistleblower provisions in combating healthcare fraud and their limitations when applied to individuals who were themselves involved in wrongdoing. While the government recovered millions that will presumably be returned to affected programs, Perry’s attempt to profit from reporting misconduct in which he participated was firmly rejected by the court.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
11 Comments
This is a difficult case, but the courts appear to have made a prudent decision. While whistleblowers play a critical role, the system has to have safeguards against abuse. A criminal record, especially for fraud, is a major red flag that rightly disqualifies the individual from receiving a whistleblower award, even if their information was valuable.
I agree. The courts have to weigh multiple factors when considering whistleblower awards, and a criminal history, especially for fraud-related offenses, is a valid reason to deny compensation, even if the information provided was useful.
Denying the whistleblower award in this case seems like the right call. A criminal record, especially for fraud-related offenses, raises serious doubts about the whistleblower’s motivations and trustworthiness. The integrity of the whistleblower system has to be protected, even if it means forfeiting potential rewards.
It’s a shame when someone with valuable information about fraud is denied a whistleblower award, but in this case, the courts seem to have made the right call. A criminal history, especially for fraud-related offenses, casts serious doubt on the whistleblower’s motives and credibility. Protecting the integrity of the system has to come first.
This case highlights the importance of integrity in whistleblowing. While the potential reward can be substantial, the courts must carefully weigh the whistleblower’s own involvement in the alleged fraud. A criminal history is a major red flag that raises doubts about the motivations behind the lawsuit.
You make a good point. Whistleblower protections are crucial, but they shouldn’t enable those who actively participated in the wrongdoing to profit from it.
This decision highlights the complexities involved in whistleblower cases. While the relator’s information may have been valuable, their personal history and potential complicity in the fraud undermine their credibility and right to a reward. The courts have to weigh these factors carefully.
This is a tricky situation, but I can understand the court’s reasoning. While whistleblowers play a vital role, allowing someone with a criminal history to profit from their involvement in a fraud scheme could undermine public trust in the system. The rules around eligibility are there for good reason.
Exactly. The courts have to balance the need to incentivize whistleblowing with the need to maintain the integrity of the process. This decision seems like a reasonable way to uphold those principles.
It’s understandable that the courts would be hesitant to reward someone with a criminal record for their role in a fraud case, even if they later blew the whistle. Whistleblowers play an important role, but the system has to have safeguards against abuse.
Agreed. The False Claims Act aims to incentivize whistleblowing, but the rules around eligibility for awards are there for good reason – to preserve the integrity of the process.