Bakers Appliances

The perfect way to start your day.

There are many different whistleblower lawsuits pending against Pharmasan Labs

A whistleblower lawsuit can make your employer pay millions of dollars for wrongdoing, but you need to gather as much evidence as possible. Your lawyer will use this information to create a case. The first step to pursuing a whistleblower lawsuit is to disclose the wrongdoing to the government. The disclosure meeting will help you determine whether you have a case. The lawyer will then prepare a draft of the lawsuit.

Bizlink paid $1.2 million to settle whistleblower lawsuit

In a recent settlement, Bizlink Technology, Inc. paid a whistleblower a reward of $252,000 for exposing the company’s fraudulent customs practices. The company underpaid the customs duties on imports from China, and provided false invoices that reduced the value of the imported goods. This practice resulted in significant underpayments of customs fees. The whistleblower was an anonymous individual who came forward and reported the mishandling of government funds.

The whistleblower, or relator, was a former BTI employee who filed the case under the False Claims Act. The suit was filed by a former BTI manager under the qui tam provisions of the False Claims Act. The relator receives a portion of the settlement or judgment. Bizlink will pay the whistleblower his reward.

Pharmasan Labs paid $8.5 million to settle whistleblower lawsuit

A recent settlement of the Pharmasan Labs’ whistleblower lawsuits revealed that the company routinely falsely billed Medicare for tests that were not medically necessary. The tests were either investigative or experimental, and some of them were “prescribed” by non-authorized providers. In light of the lawsuit, Pharmasan agreed to pay $1.5 million to settle the claims.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office filed a lawsuit against Pharmasan Labs and NeuroScience, Inc., alleging that both companies routinely billed Medicare for tests that were not covered under the program. The companies were found to have violated the False Claims Act and manipulated test data. The companies agreed to settle the lawsuits, paying $5.7 million to the U.S. government and giving $1.1 million to the whistleblower who filed the lawsuits.

Pharmasan Labs

The complaints allege that Whistleblower lawsuits the company improperly billed insurance companies for thousands of tests that were either medically unnecessary or experimental. Moreover, a number of the tests were improperly prescribed by non-authorized providers. These lawsuits have been filed by patients and healthcare providers alike. While the company has yet to be found liable, the claims are not unfounded.

As a result of the settlements, several people have been compensated. One case involves a former billing manager who complained that her employer was billing Medicare for tests that were not eligible. When she raised her concerns with management, they did not respond, and she filed a whistleblower lawsuit under the False Claims Act. The whistleblower, Richard F., will receive $1.1 million for his work as a whistleblower in the case.


The United States is now taking legal action against the pharmaceutical company NeuroScience, Inc., and its owner, Mieke Kellerman. In the petition, the government seeks the disclosure of the company’s internal emails and other records, including billing codes, which were incorrect or misleading. The company and Kellermann both deny knowing about the lawsuits or other legal issues. They also claim that no one at NeuroScience or Pharmasan is an expert in billing codes.

The CodeMap dispute centers on documents it collected during its audits. It also involves communications it had with NeuroScience and Pharmasan. The respondents argue that these documents were protected by attorney-client privilege or work product privilege, but NeuroScience contends that CodeMap was an agent of its attorneys and could not waive the protections afforded to client-lawyer communications. The firm also argues that the documents were collected in the context of the company’s operations and were not intended to serve as litigation preparation.