Articles Tagged: Healthcare Litigation
12
The Justice Department has authorized a $400 million settlement to resolve litigation brought by the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium over contract support costs under the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (ISDEAA). The dispute centered on the federal government’s obligation to fund the overhead and administrative expenses tribal entities incur when they assume responsibility for delivering healthcare services that the government would otherwise provide.
The settlement is notable not just for its size, but for what it says about the federal government’s continuing exposure in ISDEAA funding disputes.
Weill Cornell Medicine has reached a settlement with Manhattan federal prosecutors to resolve a criminal investigation into allegations that the institution failed for years to prevent a physician’s sexual abuse of patients. The matter, handled by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, is notable not only because of the underlying misconduct allegations, but because prosecutors trained their focus on the institution’s response — or lack of response — to warning signs and complaints.
That distinction matters.
The Justice Department has announced a $400 million settlement to cover healthcare costs for the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium, marking one of the larger recent federal settlements and an important development at the intersection of tribal healthcare, federal funding obligations, and government-liability litigation.
For legal professionals, the size of the resolution is only part of the story.
The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear Eli Lilly’s constitutional challenge to the False Claims Act’s qui tam mechanism, preserving one of the government’s most potent civil fraud enforcement tools. The petition arose from litigation brought by whistleblower Ronald Streck, who accused Lilly of misconduct tied to Medicaid drug rebate reporting.
By denying review, the Court leaves in place lower-court rulings that allowed the case to proceed and, more broadly, avoids reopening a recurring defense-side attack on the False Claims Act’s structure.

Stay Connected