WHISTLE-BLOWER SEEKS SUPREME COURT REVIEW OF $1.6M FEE SANCTION Scott v. Metro. Health Corp. | Secondary Sources | Westlaw

WHISTLE-BLOWER SEEKS SUPREME COURT REVIEW OF $1.6M FEE SANCTION Scott v. Metro. Health Corp. | Secondary Sources | Westlaw

View on Westlaw or start a FREE TRIAL today, WHISTLE-BLOWER SEEKS SUPREME COURT REVIEW OF $1.6M FEE SANCTION Scott v. Metro. Health Corp., Secondary Sources
Skip Page Header

WHISTLE-BLOWER SEEKS SUPREME COURT REVIEW OF $1.6M FEE SANCTION Scott v. Metro. Health Corp.

13 No. 6 ANHCFLR 2Andrews Health Care Fraud Litigation Reporter (Approx. 3 pages)

WHISTLE-BLOWER SEEKS SUPREME COURT REVIEW OF $1.6M FEE SANCTION Scott v. Metro. Health Corp.

13 No. 6 ANHCFLR 2Andrews Health Care Fraud Litigation Reporter (Approx. 3 pages)

13 No. 6 Andrews Health Care Fraud Litig. Rep. 2
Andrews Health Care Fraud Litigation Reporter
*1 December 19, 2007
Retaliation
Copyright © 2007 Thomson/West .

WHISTLE-BLOWER SEEKS SUPREME COURT REVIEW OF $1.6M FEE SANCTION

Scott v. Metro. Health Corp.

Briefs and Other Related Documents
A former hospital manager who won part of a qui tam settlement but was ordered to pay $1.6 million in legal fees after losing her related retaliation claim is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review the sanction ruling.
Scott v. Metropolitan Health...
End of Document© 2024 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.