Skip to main content

Jane T. Haviland

Associate

JT[email protected]

+1.617.348.4473

Share:

Jane’s practice focuses on litigation matters, including health care enforcement defense, complex civil and business litigation, and product liability law. Recent victories to which Jane has contributed include:

  • Defense verdicts on summary judgment in multi-jurisdictional product liability disputes involving FDA-approved pharmaceutical drugs and assay test development.
  • Defense verdict on partial summary judgment in a bet-the-company case involving a dispute between the majority owner of a multi-billion dollar company and private equity investors.

Jane defends clients facing government investigations and whistleblower complaints regarding alleged violations of the federal False Claims Act and similar state laws — often related to purported overpayments or kickbacks. 

Jane also maintains an active pro bono practice, succeeding on an appeal before an administrative law judge and securing social security benefits for her client. Jane has also appeared in family and probate court on behalf of her clients in guardianship and custody matters.

While attending law school at night and working full time for the State Auditor’s Office, Jane was the winner of the National Moot Court New England Regional Competition and the two-time winner of the Tom C. Clark Appellate Advocacy Competition. She also served as Comment Editor of the Suffolk University Law Review. She graduated first in her class from Suffolk Law’s evening program.

Education

  • Suffolk University Law School (JD, Summa Cum Laude, Dean's List)
  • Boston University (BA, English, Cum Laude, Dean’s List)

Viewpoints

Viewpoint General

DOJ Seeks Dismissal of FCA Qui Tam Case to Escape Onerous Discovery Obligations

August 22, 2019 | Blog | By Jane Haviland, Karen Lovitch

On August 20, 2019, the United States exercised its authority under the False Claims Act (FCA) to seek dismissal of a relator’s qui tam suit because of the defendant’s burdensome discovery demands, in Polansky v. Executive Health Resources, Inc.  Since the lawsuit’s inception in 2012, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' (HHS) Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), and other government agencies have attempted to fend off a series of burdensome Touhy requests but failed to do so.  Meanwhile, the scope of discovery has ballooned.  Collectively, DOJ and HHS have deployed six attorneys to work this case.  And, to top it off, DOJ is concerned about relator’s credibility and his ability to prove a FCA violation.  DOJ’s dismissal request thus comes as no surprise.
Viewpoint
The Third Circuit Court of Appeals recently dismissed a relator’s False Claims Act (“FCA”) case under the pre-Affordable Care Act (“ACA”) version of the public disclosure bar. The court decided in U.S. ex rel. Denis v. Medco that to escape the FCA’s public disclosure bar by qualifying as an “original source” under the pre-ACA version of the FCA, a relator must have first-hand, non-derivative knowledge of conduct giving rise to the FCA claim.
Viewpoint General
On June 26, 2019, a divided Supreme Court in Kisor v. Wilkie issued one of its most important administrative law decisions in decades. The Supreme Court decided to uphold, but dramatically narrow, the doctrine of judicial deference to agency regulations, known as Auer deference, but at the same time unanimously found for petitioner James Kisor in overturning the Federal Circuit’s affirmance of the Board of Veteran’s Appeals decision to deny part of his claim for Vietnam War disability benefits.  We discuss below the majority and minority opinions on Auer deference, the narrow unanimous holding of reversal, and the importance of this decision.
Viewpoint General

DOJ Issues Guidance on Cooperation Credit in FCA Settlements

May 10, 2019 | Blog | By Jane Haviland, Laurence Freedman

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued policy guidance on May 6, 2019, about providing credit in False Claims Act (FCA) settlements to corporations for “disclosure, cooperation, and remediation." DOJ has never previously issued guidance regarding credit in FCA matters. This guidance, coupled with the passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act in 2017 (which requires DOJ to specify the amount of “restitution” or “remediation” at the time of settlement), provides meaningful specificity as to what conduct constitutes disclosure, cooperation, and remediation, as well as data for evaluating whether credit is actually reflected in negotiated FCA settlements. This policy guidance is contained in the Justice Manual, Section 4-4.112.
Viewpoint General

Mintz Health Care Qui Tam Update - February 2019

February 20, 2019 | Article | By Hope Foster, Kevin McGinty, Randy Jones, Jane Haviland, Yarazel Mejorado

Read about health care qui tam litigation trends for the 12 months that ended on January 31 and significant cases, including two involving the issue of medical necessity.

Supreme Court Declines to Address Circuit Split on Data Breach Standing Issue

February 28, 2018 | Blog | By Jane Haviland, Kevin McGinty

A circuit split on whether actual misuse of personal data is required to have standing to assert data breach claims remains unresolved. Last week the Supreme Court rejected a petition to review that issue in CareFirst v. Attias.
On February 24, 2015, Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. agreed to pay more than $16 million to settle charges that two of its subsidiaries allegedly paid $3.2 million in bribes that generated $14,122,535 in illicit profits.