Building a Healthcare Qui Tam Case: From Whistleblower to Recovery

Dan Fruchter
Dan Fruchter
Singleton Schreiber

Daniel “Dan” Fruchter is a partner in Singleton Schreiber’s Spokane office and managing partner of the firm’s nationwide Whistleblower and False Claims Act practice group. He represents whistleblowers in False Claims Act and fraud matters involving health care, government contracts, grants, mortgage lending, cybersecurity, and other public programs.

Clayton E. Wire
Clayton E. Wire
Ogborn Mihm LLP

Clayton “Clay” E. Wire is a partner at Ogborn Mihm LLP in Denver and a trial lawyer focused on whistleblower, qui tam, employment, and commercial litigation. He represents whistleblowers in False Claims Act matters and retaliation claims, including cases involving health care fraud, the Anti-Kickback Statute, Stark Law, Sarbanes-Oxley, and other federal protections.

Live Video-Broadcast: September 21, 2026

2 hour CLE

Tuition: $195.00
Subscribe to Federal Bar Association CLE Pass...
Co-Sponsored by myLawCLE
Get this course, plus over 1,000+ of live webinars.
Learn More
Training 5 or more people?

Sign-up for a law firm subscription plan and each attorney in the firm receives free access to all CLE Programs

Program Summary

A Declined Case Now Faces a Constitutional Challenge, Not Just a Motion to Dismiss

Healthcare qui tam practice no longer turns on pleading alone. SuperValu moved scienter to what the defendant actually believed. The circuits split on whether AKS-tainted claims require but-for causation. And the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions themselves is now live.

Miss the public disclosure bar and the case ends before the government reads it. Plead below Rule 9(b) particularity and the complaint draws a dismissal motion instead of an investigation. Violate the seal and the filing itself becomes the problem. Misread enforcement priorities and the government declines.

You leave with a relator-vetting and pre-filing diligence framework, a Rule 9(b) pleading approach for healthcare claims, and a working model for structuring falsity theories, reading current Medicaid enforcement priorities, and defending a case the government declines.

Key topics to be discussed:

  • Relator Vetting and Diligence
    Screen whistleblower candidates for credibility and document risk, then run the pre-filing diligence that decides whether the case is worth bringing.
  • Public Disclosure Bar
    Test insider knowledge against the public disclosure bar and original source doctrine before the defense does it for you.
  • Pleading and Seal Compliance
    Plead healthcare FCA claims at the particularity Rule 9(b) demands and meet seal requirements so the filing itself never becomes the issue.
  • FCA Elements and Scienter
    Work the healthcare FCA elements through the post-SuperValu subjective scienter framework and what it changes at trial.
  • Causation and Materiality
    Choose a causation theory that survives the AKS circuit split and preempt materiality arguments built on government and defendant knowledge.
  • Enforcement and Constitutional Risk
    Read the government’s current Medicaid and healthcare enforcement priorities and position a declined case against the live constitutional challenge to qui tam.

This course is co-sponsored with myLawCLE.

Date / Time: September 21, 2026

  • 12:00 pm – 2:10 pm Eastern
  • 11:00 am – 1:10 pm Central
  • 10:00 am – 12:10 pm Mountain
  • 9:00 am – 11:10 am Pacific

Closed-captioning available

Speakers

Dan Fruchter, Partner | Singleton Schreiber

Daniel “Dan” Fruchter is a partner in Singleton Schreiber’s Spokane office and managing partner of the firm’s nationwide Whistleblower and False Claims Act practice group. He represents whistleblowers in False Claims Act and fraud matters involving health care, government contracts, grants, mortgage lending, cybersecurity, and other public programs. Before entering private practice, he spent nearly two decades with the U.S. Department of Justice and U.S. Attorney’s Offices, prosecuting False Claims Act, health care fraud, environmental, civil rights, and consumer protection matters. His cases have recovered billions of dollars for the public and protected programs including Medicare, Medicaid, SNAP, veterans benefits, and federal environmental programs.

  • Education & Credentials

Mr. Fruchter earned his J.D. from the University of Maryland School of Law and his B.A. in Environmental Science and English, magna cum laude, from Tulane University. He is admitted in Washington, New York, Wisconsin, and Oregon, as well as several federal district and appellate courts.

  • Recognition & Leadership

Mr. Fruchter has received numerous awards for his government fraud and False Claims Act work, including the Samuel J. Heyman Service to America Medal, the Attorney General’s Award for Fraud Prevention, the Anti-Fraud Coalition’s “Honest Abe” Integrity in Government Award, and multiple Department of Justice, Department of Energy, and federal inspector general awards. He previously served as Chief of the Fraud and White-Collar Crime Unit at the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Washington.

  • Professional Involvement

Mr. Fruchter serves on the Advisory Board and Membership Committee of the Federal Bar Association’s Qui Tam Section and is a member of the Washington Association for Justice, The Anti-Fraud Coalition, and the American Association for Justice. He regularly teaches and speaks on False Claims Act, whistleblower, and health care fraud issues for organizations including the Federal Bar Association, American Bar Association, and Anti-Fraud Coalition.

  • Experience

From 2017 to 2025, Mr. Fruchter served as Chief of the Fraud and White-Collar Crime Unit at the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Washington, where he handled civil and criminal fraud, False Claims Act, health care fraud, environmental, civil rights, and consumer protection matters. Earlier in his career, he served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney and Health Care Fraud Coordinator and as a Trial Attorney in the DOJ Civil Division’s Fraud Section. At Singleton Schreiber, he now leads the firm’s national whistleblower and False Claims Act practice.

 

Clayton “Clay” E. Wire, Partner | Ogborn Mihm LLP

Clayton “Clay” E. Wire is a partner at Ogborn Mihm LLP in Denver and a trial lawyer focused on whistleblower, qui tam, employment, and commercial litigation. He represents whistleblowers in False Claims Act matters and retaliation claims, including cases involving health care fraud, the Anti-Kickback Statute, Stark Law, Sarbanes-Oxley, and other federal protections. His broader practice includes employment disputes, business torts, contract litigation, and appellate matters.

  • Education & Credentials

Mr. Wire earned his J.D. from the University of Denver Sturm College of Law, where he was recognized in the Order of St. Ives, and his B.A. in Editorial Journalism and Political Science from Colorado State University. He is admitted to practice in Colorado and California and before the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico.

  • Recognition & Leadership

Mr. Wire was named the 2018 Barristers Best plaintiff-side employment lawyer and his team received the 2018 Plaintiffs Employment Lawyers Association Case of the Year. He has held leadership positions in the Colorado Bar Association, Colorado Trial Lawyers Association, and Colorado Plaintiffs Employment Lawyers Association, including serving as Co-Chair of the Colorado Trial Lawyers Association’s Employment Law Section.

  • Professional Involvement

Mr. Wire is a member of the Colorado Trial Lawyers Association, Plaintiffs Employment Lawyers Association, National Employment Lawyers Association, Colorado Bar Association, Denver Bar Association, and American Association for Justice. He has also been actively involved in continuing legal education and legislative efforts concerning plaintiff-side employment and whistleblower law.

  • Experience

Mr. Wire has represented relators in False Claims Act cases involving Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement, government-backed mortgage fraud, and health care fraud, as well as employees alleging retaliation for reporting federal violations. His appellate work includes Genberg v. Porter, a precedent-setting Tenth Circuit decision that broadened protections for corporate whistleblowers under Sarbanes-Oxley. His broader trial record includes a $1.2 million jury verdict in a contract and employment dispute and a $3.5 million settlement in a civil rights case against the City of Lakewood Police Department.

Agenda

SESSION 1 – Building a Healthcare Qui Tam Case: From Whistleblower to Well-Pleaded Complaint | 12:00pm – 1:00pm

This session walks relator counsel through the pre-suit lifecycle of a Medicare/Medicaid fraud qui tam action, from evaluating potential whistleblowers to preparing a complaint that can jump-start the government’s investigation and ultimately stand on its own when it needs to. Attendees will learn practical strategies for assessing relator credibility, conducting pre-filing diligence, navigating procedural hurdles, and developing a litigation-ready case. The discussion will also examine recent developments shaping False Claims Act litigation, including pleading standards, government priorities, and other emerging legal and practical issues affecting qui tam practice.

BREAK | 1:00pm – 1:10pm

SESSION 2 – Current Developments in Healthcare Qui Tam Cases | 1:10pm – 2:10pm

This session covers the substantive legal elements that determine whether a healthcare fraud qui tam case succeeds at trial and what the relator ultimately recovers. Attorneys will work through the post-SuperValu scienter framework, the AKS-based causation circuit split, the materiality defense, and the government’s recent focus on Medicaid fraud. Attendees leave with a working model for structuring falsity theories, determining enforcement priorities, and anticipating the constitutional threats now facing declined qui tam cases.

Credits

Alaska

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Our programs are CLE-eligible through Alaska’s recognition of multi-jurisdictional reciprocity.
Alabama

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Arkansas

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Arizona

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

California

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Colorado

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Connecticut

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

District of Columbia

No MCLE Required
2 CLE Hour(s)

Delaware

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Florida

Approved via Attorney Submission
2 General Hours

Receive CLE credit in Florida via attorney submission.
Georgia

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Hawaii

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Iowa

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Idaho

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Illinois

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Indiana

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Kansas

Pending CLE Approval
2 Substantive

Kentucky

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Louisiana

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Massachusetts

No MCLE Required
2 CLE Hour(s)

Maryland

No MCLE Required
2 CLE Hour(s)

Maine

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Michigan

No MCLE Required
2 CLE Hour(s)

Minnesota

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Missouri

Approved for CLE Credits
2.4 General

Mississippi

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Montana

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

North Carolina

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

North Dakota

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Our programs are CLE-eligible through North Dakota’s recognition of multi-jurisdictional reciprocity. Section 1, Policy 1.14
Nebraska

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

myLawCLE reports attendance to Nebraska on each attorney’s behalf for all programs. Please do not self-report.
New Hampshire

Approved for CLE Credits
120 General minutes

As of July 1, 2014, the NHMCLE Board no longer provides pre- or post-approval of courses. Attendees must self-determine whether a program is eligible for credit, and self-report their attendance online at www.nhbar.org, based on qualification provisions of Rule 53.
New Jersey

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Our programs are CLE-eligible through New Jersey’s recognition of multi-jurisdictional reciprocity, except for the courses required under BCLE Reg. 201:2
New Mexico

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Nevada

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

New York

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Our programs are CLE-eligible through New York’s Approved Jurisdiction Group “B”.
Ohio

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Oklahoma

Pending CLE Approval
2.5 General

Oregon

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Pennsylvania

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Rhode Island

Pending CLE Approval
2.5 General

South Carolina

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

South Dakota

No MCLE Required
2 CLE Hour(s)

Tennessee

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Texas

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Utah

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Virginia

Not Eligible
2 General Hours

Vermont

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Washington

Approved via Attorney Submission
2 Law & Legal Hours

Receive CLE credit in Washington via attorney submission.
Wisconsin

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

West Virginia

Pending CLE Approval
2.4 General

Wyoming

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

More CLE Webinars
Upcoming CLE Webinars
iPad for Lawyers: The Complete Mobile Practice Toolkit
iPad for Lawyers: The Complete Mobile Practice Toolkit Wed, August 26, 2026
On-Demand
Live Replay
When AI Notetakers Break Privilege in Internal Investigations
When AI Notetakers Break Privilege in Internal Investigations Fri, August 28, 2026
On-Demand
Live Replay