Litigation - Healthcare
In all matters of litigation or threatened litigation, Powers strives for favorable, early resolution. However, when negotiating a satisfactory resolution proves impossible, Powers offers healthcare clients the necessary skills, experience and resources to mount a vigorous and effective offense or defense.
The firm represents and defends clients responding to subpoenas and civil investigative demands issued by the U.S. Department of Justice, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and the U.S. Department Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General in connection with False Claims Act investigations, administrative investigations, and related litigation. Many such representations have resulted in a determination by the government not to proceed with litigation.
Attorneys at Powers Pyles Sutter and Verville also represent clients in administrative litigation. The firm has 30 years of experience appealing to the Provider Reimbursement Review Board and has assisted clients with thousands of appeals before Medicare Administrative Law Judges. The firm also litigates before state and local administrative tribunals that adjudicate health law matters. If an administrative remedy does not provide adequate relief, the client will often be entitled to judicial review, and the firm then represents the client in court. For example, the firm obtained a favorable ruling from the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals that entitled a teaching hospital to significantly increased funding for indirect medical education.
The firm also successfully resolves disputes without litigation. When healthcare clients have been aggrieved by arbitrary and capricious interpretations of healthcare regulations, the firm has challenged the government’s actions under the Administrative Procedure Act. In one instance, the firm succeeded in obtaining the agreement of the agency to issue a Medicaid State Release to all state Medicaid agencies that in essence confirmed that the position of the firm’s clients was correct and clarified that a contrary interpretation issued by the agency did not in fact apply to the firm’s clients.