Do Whistleblowers Get Too Much Money?

I voted yes, 45 million is an insane amount. Would like to see him donate some of that money to charity

I think the whistleblowers earn the money. After all, fewer than one in a thousand actually recover anything.

Most do it because it is the right thing to do -- and only later do they learn, usually after consulting with a lawyer, that "bounties" may be available.

Many (perhaps most) whistleblowers start by trying to work within the "chain of command" at their respective institutions -- but eventually get stonewalled, slow-rolled or managed out -- for their trouble.

And those are only the more gently-contested cases.

I've seen careers ruined; good, honest people hounded -- followed by P.I.s (usually ex-Secret Service), day and night, 24 by 7, for months on end (always just outside of the protectible 150 foot personal space radius, though) -- "blacklisted" from ever working in pharma, in their chosen field, again. . . .

It is perplexing to me that any of us think we should tell others what to do with money they earn (though many do give large amounts to charity) be being villified, harrassed, slandered, libeled -- and in more than the occasional case -- threatened with harm, directly, or to a loved one.

I vote no.

Namamste

Whistleblowers frequently give to charities. So too do their lawyers as even a little research will reveal. But here's a question: How about the company CEO's who are pocketing much larger numbers? Are they giving to charities? Are the lawyers that are "defending" company frauds at a cost of $1,000 an hour giving to charities?

As to the question of putting more money into Uncle Sam's pocket, sure; let's do that. There is no "magic" to triple damages. We could go to QUADRUPLE damages and the Supreme Court would still salute it.

So YES, let's go to quadruple damages, and let's thank the FCA defense bar for this marvelous idea. Clearly, triple damages have not been enough heat for the fraudsters to see the light. The answer is to clearly hit them harder. Point well made!

PBurns

As Condor says 1 in 1000 prevail. But 1 in 10 commit suicide and another 1 in 10 wind up divorced. Then there are the effects on your children. Not even counting when your children are actually threatened. As for going to lawyers most people go to employment lawyers who don't care about qui tam. They just want to drag things out to churn your bill then they'll settle for much less than a penny on the dollar that a whistleblower suit could bring. So you wind up with a pittance which may not even cover your expenses yet people are typically stuck with never being able to open your mouth, emotionally ruined, and not even able to get therapy since you can't talk.

Yes they ruin you.

Krusewski was lucky. He had a business and was only found things as a consultant as a small part of his business. Then he went and ingratiated himself with the companies so as to collect evidence and make millions. He didn't jeopardize his career or life or family. It's guys like him that help companies argue that whistleblowers are just in it for the money.

Most whistleblowers don't do it for the money. We need the money awards otherwise there would be no lawyers who would even think about helping, and the laws are so complex that you absolutely need a team of crack lawyers with deep pockets. Even so it's extremely difficult.

How about looking at the median return for a whistleblower? In many cases, it is not even positive, plus there is typically a ruined career. It also takes years in many cases.

The $45 million will be split between two relators, perhaps in a 50/50 split. Thus one person is actually getting $22.5 million. Then there is a 30 - 40% contingency fee which goes to the attorneys leaving $13.5 million. Then there will be taxes on the $13.5 million (going to the government) perhaps 35% for Federal taxes and say 5% for state tax yielding about $8 million -- a far cry from the $45 million people are reacting to. Only a handful of relators see this kind of money.

When you consider that many whistleblowers are ultimately blacklisted from the industries they work in and suffer great personal hardship I say let them have the money.

Consider the case of Dr. Jeffrey Wigand, who went from being VP of R&D at Brown & Williamson Tobacco to being a high school chemistry teacher, losing his family in the process. Consider too the case of Dr. Robert Kearns, inventor of the intermittent windshield wiper. Although not technically a whistleblower, he went up against Ford Motor Company for infringeing on his patent. Many years later, after losing his family and nearly losing his sanity in the process, and being forced to act as his own attorney, he finally settled with Ford for what I would consider to be the paltry sum of $10.1 million dollars, considering what the product was actually worth.

I also voted yes because $45 million truly IS an insane amount. Much of money should be going to the government and should be used for shoring up Medicare.

Considering who they go up against they are lucky to come out of it alive, and not like Silkwood.

But, the patients and people harmed by the drugs still receive rare compensation for the harm/death done to them or their family members.So it becomes a win/win or a lose/lose however you look at it. Grassley is concerned if there is a cap on payout to the whistleblowers they will stop coming forward.Which means it's not about 'compassion' or 'doing the right thing', it actually becomes about the money.

Wouldn't the true 'wanting to make things right' type do this for free, for the good of humanity? Just a thought.

Bottom line, the pharmaceutical industry is a corporate for profit industry and will go to any length to make the profit.

There was more than James Wetta, several people actually signed the document. Though James Wetta, being a Lilly whistleblower as well, seems to be getting all of the attention.

I wonder what Peter Rost thinks of this topic?

Would you blow the whistle for free?

Bottom line is the question of what criteria you'd use to decide how much is too much.

--Factor in the loss of income, probably for a lifetime.

--Factor in the risks of suicide, divorce, ostracism, and--in general--disillusionment on all sides (even when one wins and is "vindictated" to that extent).

--Factor in the extent to which the possibility of winning a large award does make the difference for some people.

--Factor in the fact, as has been reiterated, that the vast majority of WBs get nothing and still go through all the consequences above. We are always hearing about what a "risky business" pharma is, and that the industry's profits cover all the wells that don't produce. Pharma's risk are trivial relative to what WB's take on.

--After you factor in all of that, someone tell me what is a reasonable amount, and why that and not some other.

--Also factor in also what we would almost certainly not know--or learn much later--about a long line of drugs and devices that would still be on the market and/or being promoted, and rx'd, for uses without benefit and potentially significant risk.

Let's be correct, Stephany. Karen Silkwood crashed her car into a culvert after OD'ing on Quaaludes. Despite claims to the contrary her body at autopsy did not contain excessive amounts of plutonium. Silkwood was a publicity seeker, and despite the wrongdoings of her company I don't believed that they intentionally poisoned her. The reason? Since Silkwood wsn never found to have had all of the "incriminating documents" that she claimed to have had the company would have had absolutely zero to gain by poisoning her. I think that it is reasonable to believe that her "poisoning" was self-induced in order to gain publicity for her cause. She was also a troubled woman with an obvious drug dependency problem.

It depends on what the whistle has been blown on. If it's an issue serious enough, the whistleblower should be awarded at the very minimum, to cover the cost of a stress free (financially stressed), and comfortable life for said whistleblower and his or her immediate family.

It should also be large enough to deter whatever (assumingly valid) problem was occurring, that was pointed out to the government.

Yes, $45M to one person is excessive, unless one has been caused illness, pain and suffering, etc. If so, then the crime may be heinous enough to warrant a large settlement.

MB

The whistleblower system creates a perverse incentive for employees to keep secret critical information that the campany needs to conduct a responsible business.

For example, if a sales rep knows that off-label promotions are encouraged, the sales rep is incentivized by the whistleblower system to keep quite and independently get a lawyer to cash in on this knowledge.

I propose that if each whistleblower were truely concerned about the public well-being, they would report bad conduct, in my example the off-label promotion, to the appropriate auditor/compliance/legal person within the company so that the company would be forced to act immediately.

If after communicating the bad actions up the corporate chain nothing happens, then I feel whistleblower recovery may be justified.

Given the absolute hell that they go through, they don't get paid enough! Big Pharma CEOs and their minions do! If an employee dares to question commercial strategies and tactics within a company, they are quickly dispensed with as not being good soldiers for not being blindly loyal to the company. Most are unjustly fired, then black-balled. All for trying to do the right thing. Most never collect a penny and have their lives and careers completely ruined. There is no justice in this chain of events, yet it occurs over and over and over again to protect corruption within companies.

To in-house,

If employees report within the company, they get terminated. I saw it happen multiple times and it ruined many lives. Why should Big pharma be able to get away with this? the tope executives act like bullies towards anyone in their way. Off with their heads!!

It's very sad. Try to do the right thing and get canned, without hope of landing anywhere else!

It takes legal resources to do make some companies pay attention and these are not cheap. Even if WBs were willing to blow the whistle for free, attorneys are not willing to provide services for free.

OK Pharmavet, let's be correct.

Patients remain in litigation (25,000 or so)for lawsuits against AstraZeneca, for diabetes and Seroquel use.

AstraZeneca signed how many CIA's?

Bottom line, whistleblower personal loss ends up with cash in the bank, patient loss ends up remaining injured, etc without compensation.

Face it Wetta et al CAN re-build a life with that kind of money in the bank!

Glad you know the correct details of Silkwood though! heh.

I agree that the amount some Whistleblowers get may sound like a lot, but when you count the years dragged out, the amount of money the attorneys get, the taxes due, on top of the odds of collecting nothing against a risk of losing everything, I think the amount needs to remain high.

At least if we expect Whistleblowers to keep going up against the most powerful industry on the planet.

Didn't I read somewhere that AstraSeneca paid out over a half a billion dollars in just legal fees for Seroquel? Who among us would even consider taking on a company with those kind of resources unless the bounty was huge?

> Who among us would even consider taking on a company with those kind of resources unless the bounty was huge?

Those of us who are whistleblowers in cases of substantially less value and who believe "This behavior is wrong and needs to stop".

whistleblowers are often up against more than one company and these companies tend to all have vast resources and connections.

John T. Boese wants reduced whistleblower awards. He "is a nationally-recognized expert on the civil False Claims Act. He has represented defendants in numerous False Claims Act cases brought by qui tam relators or by the Department of Justice. His clients include corporations and institutions in a broad variety of industries . . . in False Claims Act litigation."

Isn't that enough information to understand his position on this matter?

Also, if the book by the Madoff whistleblower is correct, some whistleblowers could potentially make more money by submitting and helping multiple federal agencies...like the SEC... that being said, the book also goes on to say that the SEC has never paid out a whistleblower claim despite having a whistleblower program....and, the SEC's whistleblower program only applies to civil cases and does not apply to criminal conduct...so I guess if you are going to commit securities fraud, make sure that your violations are criminal in scope and not civil b/c you'll likely increase the odds of not getting caught

It sounds like Scott took at least a slight offense at my comment about people not being willing to risk going up against a drug company unless the reward was high enough.

I've been covering the battles between common citizens and Big Pharma for 6 years straight and I've watched people (plaintiffs and whistleblowers alike) get clobbered over and over for no reason other than the opponent was just to big to go up against.

After seeing what happens, if I had a family and was totally dependent on a career in the pharmaceutical industry, I would not even think about becoming a whistleblower, no matter how much money was at the end of the rainbow.

I'd find a different job with another company and then try to get somebody else to blow the whistle.

First thing any intelligent whistleblower does is consult an attorney.

If you're a government employment the first thing they tell you is NO ONE is going to take a Qui Tam case from a government employee b/c DOJ won't claim fraud on the gov't if gov't officials are involved in the fraud.

So any intelligent government employee who whistleblows knows they have virtually no chance of any financial recovery and the best they can hope for is getting their job back. Which means going back into an environment where everyone is gunning for you.

Besides what's too much? Most whistleblowers are in their late 30's - mid 40's. So they typically have at least 20 years or more to go in their careers, plus retirement. If you're a biomedical scientist you may not have even started to work and earn a living until you're in your mid-30's, but with 10 yrs of experience may be making in the low 6 figures.

If you figure 20 years at 125K base, plus benefits, plus 401K employer's contribution, plus loss of pension, loss of SS benefits, and loss of investment income from the 401K. Then figure in attorney's fees and additional taxes if you win. You need an award of well over $20 million just to break even.

Plus for government employees the system is even more rigged than on the outside. We have a special court system with no jury, the discovery documents are not public, the FDA can deny discovery documents that have anything to do with drugs claiming they're trade secrets and exempt from disclosure unless they want to make things available to the general public, and since 2000 not one single whistleblower in the entire gov't has won a case.

All that needs to happen for you to fail is no one to investigate. Of course the Office of Special Council who is supposed to investigate typically blows off any complaints and the last head of OSC recently went to prison for retaliating against his own staff and destroying evidence. Plus if you go to Congress certain offices will simply report back to the FDA on you. So government whistleblowers are typically left to try to fight without a lawyer in a rigged system.

Been there.

Good thread.

Re: this comment:

"For example, if a sales rep knows that off-label promotions are encouraged, the sales rep is incentivized by the whistleblower system to keep quite and independently get a lawyer to cash in on this knowledge."

Given how rarely WB cases go anywhere, and the enormous cost of moving forward (measured against the small chance of large financial reward), my guess is that this is actually not how the incentives work.

In any event, in most of the WB situations of which I have any knowledge, the relevant person did, indeed, try to work within the company. WB'ing was, initially, the last thing on their minds.

"Every dime we give a whistleblower is money that’s supposed to go to the government and doesn’t,” Boese tells Bloomberg.

So the company has to pay treble damages and the whistleblower gets less than 1/6 if DOJ participates.

If you try to make a business deal they'll say to you would you rather have 100% of nothing or 10% of something. In these cases the government is typically getting 255% of what they've been defrauded out of and the whistleblower gets 45%.

Poor, poor government is only getting 245% of what they've been cheated out of.

Of course the defender of the crooks probably wants people to believe that the whistleblower shouldn't get anything all. After all it's their duty.

Salmon

Wow, great thread! My 2 cents:

W.B.'S come in all shapes and sizes, for all sorts of different reasons. However, we have a vetting process in place that weeds out the poor cases, and proceeds with the good cases.

The real problem is not the fact that if he/she decides to W.B. internally, that they will be out before the door can hit them where the good lord split them. No, the real problem is that the W.B. is often times in the dark regarding what is a good case, or not. It's not like it is public knowledge of what constitutes a good case from a bad one. The only way to find out is to dive into the process.

AND LET ME SAY THIS MUCH ABOUT THE PROCESS, IT IS PAINFULLY SLOW. YOU MOST LIKELY WILL BE OUT OF PHARMA FOREVER, WIN OR LOSE. YOUR MARRIAGE WILL BE TESTED. YOU WILL MAKE LESS MONEY. YOU WILL BE TRAILED AND/OR HARRASSED. SOME WILL THINK YOU ARE A HERO, MOST WILL THINK YOU ARE A RAT THAT DID IT FOR THE MONEY. YOU WILL HAVE STRESS ISSUES. ETC...

Take all that into account for next 5-7 years of your life, and tell ME that the amount that W.B.'s get is too much!

Take into account that without our help in the investigations, the public would probably never even know that this type of fraud is taking place.

Take into account that without our help the govt. would not have collected 20 billion dollars in fines for the last decade.

Take into account all the money we save tax payers by rooting out illegal rx's by bringing such fraud to light.

Take into account, It's the RIGHT THING TO DO!

Take into account all that and consider we have a one in a million shot at landing the type of payouts mentioned earlier.

TAKE ALL THAT INTO ACCOUNT AND TELL ME THAT THE REWARDS FOR W.B.'S SHOULD BE REDUCED.

If you reduce the awards, you will reduce the incentive to come forward. If you reduce the incentive to come forward, the you lose the W.B. If you lose the W.B., you will lose everything.

Peter R. read it correctly, the only ones who want reduced rewards is Pharma, go figure?

I think WB's earn every penny they get - may many more get wealthy being handsomely rewarded for what they do.

There is no price on the lives that can be saved when people come forward.

John Boese thinks they receive too much? Yet he represents corporations against whistleblower suits. Gosh! Imagine that.

I wonder if he thinks the $700+ an hour he charges clients is "reasonable".

Whistleblowers may help assure that his family members get appropriate medical care some day.

in most cases the government wouldn't be getting anything back if not for whistleblowers. they deserve every penny they get. why should bad behavior be better rewarded than good behavior? besides, his main argument is specious - why would government go with a whistleblower if they can make a case on their own?

@ in-house - it is my understanding that whistleblowers are required to try to make changes from the inside before bringing suit. I can't think of a whistleblower story where this hasn't been the case. can you cite a situation where the whistleblower withheld vital information from the company - basically setting them up? or are you blowing smoke?

As per above, my experience goes with harpy's understanding. Indeed, it is often the case that the company's response to the initial questions raised that pushes the potential WBer toward that path, and it usually takes more than a few "eye-opening" or "eye-blackening" responses before they are solidly on it.

To that extent, companies create their own WBers.

and don't forget, Lisa, that the whistleblower award is a percentage of what the government recoups - so the more the gov gets back, the more the whistleblower gets.

Subtract the attorney's percentage and taxes and divide what's left by the years the case dragged out, and deduct the salary from the job lost.

After all that, how much does the average whistleblower take home in the end?

Lowering the percentage of the reward would also lower the likelihood of people being willing to stick their neck into the whistleblower noose.

Unfortunately, Big Pharma is full of crooks who don't give a darn about patients. All they care about is MONEY, MONEY, MONEY and how much they can take from others and put in there pockets. It's absolutely disgussting. Pity the poor WB who gets ousted and ostracized, black-balled and crucified. They deserve what they can get because they suffer at the hands of Big Pharma.

There is a mistake in the settlements for those thinking the government gets triple damages. When there is a negotiated settlement the government is only getting a small fraction of the low hanging fruit. IN addition I talked to some CEO's and they said it was hard to catch anyone until the False Claim Act came along and Grassley and others made it useable. SO the pharma companies continue to do it because it is highly profitable and their is no individula accountablility. When they lose they put some outrageous spin on why they paid and move on having elimated most of their elthical employees in the process. What is nice about the Qui Tam lawyers is they often review everything very thoroughly and process the facts so the U.S. Attornies know there really is a problem.I have not quite figured out why big phamra continues to make a joke out of the FDA and the federal code and still say they are in a highly regulated industry or are they regulated at all? Even funnier yet is when a legal departemtn says they could not find anything and the whistle blowers have filled an entire floor with documents for the feds to use in litigation.

The normal procedure is to disbar, and possibly jail a lawyer who offers payment in exchange for testimony.

The FDA is a waste of tax dollars. How often do drugs have to be withdrawn from the market? Whistleblowers deserve every penny they get for putting their lives on the line for all you ungrateful ignorants who know nothing of what it takes to do the right thing. And to suggest that Silkwood caused her own death . . . . unbelievable! How does one engage in a logical discussion with someone that lacking in their ability to reason?

All of you who state the money going to a whistle blower is too much you obvisouly have never had the pleasure of being one. Your life as you know it is over. From having thugs roll you and your family to undercover agents watching your every move- your life will be destroyed and you will never work again. I have tried to report issues internally allowing the company to own up to it and clean their own house and I was told to shut up and don't cause problems. So a I sit here today I have to wonder to I allow a nuclear plant to continue reporting false information that is safety related so they can extend the operation license of an old nuclear reactor that has serious safety deficiencies and keep my job and reputation intact and possibly jeapordizing all your lives? Or, do I stand up and report it to the NRC as a whistle blower and loose my career I've worked VERY VERY hard for, loose my personal and professional reputation and never be able to work in that industry again- and likely NO ONE would ever hire me in any industry. Is $45m earned really that much? And as one person pointed out I would be lucky to receive $8m after all the fees/taxes associated with it. That is far less than my furture earnings if I don't report it. Plus I also loose the future retirement gains in my 401k and pension and what about insurancde for me and my family? That's gone to. If I do report it- the right thing to do as my employer has had 3 opportunities to right the wrong, you could be the one who dies if/when this nuclear plant becomes another chernobyl or Dai Ichi. If that were to happen I bet you would think differently. I would LOOSE money if I got a $45m fee. And I would also loose any chance of ever working again in any professional capacity.

Those of you who have never been in the position thank god every day. But for those of us who have, that fee we MAY get AFTER we stand up to protect YOU the public, will never be enough to make it wirth our while. And it is sad to think any of us ever wanted to be put in the situation in the first place.

So unless you have been in this position and know the reality of what we have to face to protect you the public, there is no amount of money that can buy us our dignity back and give our families the security and happy life they deserve.

Anyone of you who have stand up for what is wrong I thank you a million times over. I still do not know if I can go through with it because no matter what I will be the ultimate loser and the mega billion dollar company will continue on regardless. I just hope those of you next to this nuclear plant move before the worst possible thing could happen.

To the rest of you F^CK OFF and stop trying to tell someone who is willing to step forward and ruin their entire career and families security for what is likely the last pay they will ever receive- that is if they are lucky enough to be one of the few who gets anything.

God bless every whistle blower and again, I thank you for being brave enough to step forward to protect us.