Whether you are an attorney, paralegal, or professional staff member, Goldberg Kohn strives to develop a vibrant culture where people of all backgrounds can grow and succeed.

Careers

Clients

Case Studies

About Us

Pages

This is a simple hero unit, a simple jumbotron-style component for calling extra attention to featured content or information.

People

News

Services

Staff

Testimonials

With our knowledge and commitment to your goals, Goldberg Kohn is built to satisfy the world’s highest standards, yours.

Home - Goldberg Kohn Ltd.

A Goldberg Kohn litigation team, led by Litigation Group Chair <a href="https://www.goldbergkohn.com/people/david-chizewer/">David Chizewer</a>, serves as lead counsel before the U.S. Supreme Court. The case involves claims that Wisconsin Bell defrauded the government by overcharging Wisconsin libraries and school districts that participated in the Federal Communications Commission's E-Rate program.

core/paragraph

Chizewer is counsel of record for the relator, Todd Heath, in the case of Wisconsin Bell, Inc. v. United States, ex rel. Todd Heath, No. 23-1127. The Supreme Court heard oral argument on November 4, 2024, and a decision is expected by the end of its term, no later than early July 2025

Goldberg Kohn's <a href="https://www.goldbergkohn.com/people/roger-lewis/">Roger Lewis</a> and <a href="https://www.goldbergkohn.com/people/harleen-kaur/">Harleen Kaur</a> also represent the relator, and <a href="https://www.goldbergkohn.com/people/william-meyers/">William Meyers</a> joined the team in preparing for a successful oral argument. Goldberg Kohn's co-counsel in the case are O'Neil Cannon in Milwaukee, Sparacino PLLC and Phillips &amp; Cohen LLP.

"It has been an honor to represent our client in the highest court in the county," said Chizewer. "Regardless of the result – about which we are optimistic – we are extremely proud to be leaders in the fight against fraud, and even prouder to do so side by side with our client and team."

Heath's Claims: The case is an important one both legally and factually. In 2008, Heath filed a qui tam action under the False Claims Act (FCA) alleging that Wisconsin Bell, an AT&amp;T subsidiary, overcharged Wisconsin libraries and school districts that participated in the Federal Communications Commission's E-Rate program. After the government declined to intervene in the case, Goldberg Kohn joined the team representing Heath. The case was filed and proceeded in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. After initial dismissal and subsequent appeal, the case proceeded through extensive fact and expert discovery. At the end of that process, the district court <a href="https://www.wied.uscourts.gov/sites/wied/files/documents/opinions/08-CV-724%20US%20v.%20Wisconsin%20Bell%20%28323%29.pdf">granted summary judgment</a> in favor of Wisconsin Bell on the grounds that were soon reversed, as detailed below.

The Seventh Circuit Rules for Heath: Heath appealed, and Chizewer successfully <a href="https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/sound/2023/kra.22-1515.22-1515_02_09_2023.mp3">argued</a> before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit Judges Easterbook, Hamilton and Lee for reversal of the district court's award of summary judgment. The Seventh Circuit panel ruled in favor of Heath, remanding the case to the district court for trial. The panel held that Heath had provided sufficient evidence that Wisconsin Bell had submitted false claims to the E-rate program and that such claims are actionable under the False Claims Act. Wisconsin Bell subsequently petitioned for rehearing en banc, seeking review by the full Seventh Circuit. That petition was denied, but the original panel issued an <a href="https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/OpinionsWeb/processWebInputExternal.pl?Submit=Display&amp;Path=Y2024/D01-16/C:22-1515:J:Hamilton:aut:T:aOp:N:3156051:S:0">amended opinion</a> that included new discussion addressing Wisconsin Bell's contention that payments submitted to the E-Rate program are not "claims" for purposes of the FCA. The Seventh Circuit rejected Wisconsin Bell's argument, ruling in favor of Heath on this issue.

The U.S. Supreme Court Appeal: The analysis in the Seventh Circuit's amended opinion proved central to Wisconsin Bell's subsequent appeal of the case to the U.S. Supreme Court. Whether E-Rate reimbursement requests are subject to the FCA hinges on whether the United States "provided any portion of the money" used to reimburse E-Rate participants or if these requests were presented to an "agent of the United States." Wisconsin Bell's theory is that E-Rate transactions should not fall under the FCA because the E-Rate program is administered by the <a href="https://www.usac.org/">Universal Service Administrative Company</a> (USAC), which is not a government agency. Funding for the Universal Service Fund (USF) originates from private telecommunications carriers. The Seventh Circuit's amended opinion rejected this argument and presented "three paths" to applying the FCA to the E-Rate program. First, the government "provides" funds claimed through the E-Rate program because it transferred $100 million to the USF directly from the Treasury. Second, the federal government provided funds beyond the $100 million because it requires telecommunications carriers to contribute to the USF. Finally, USAC functions as an "agent" of the United States when it processes claims to the E-Rate program.

The Supreme Court granted <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/061724zor_4fci.pdf">certiorari</a> in June 2024. The question presented to the Supreme Court was the same question that the Seventh Circuit's amended opinion addressed: whether reimbursement requests submitted to the E-Rate program constitute "claims" for purposes of the FCA. <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-1127/326756/20240924134746132_23-1127BriefForRespondent.pdf">The brief</a> Goldberg Kohn attorneys submitted in collaboration with co-counsel consisted of the same main arguments that the Seventh Circuit outlined.

At oral argument, all nine sitting justices of the Supreme Court engaged in active questioning of the attorneys about the question presented. A transcript of the argument is available <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2024/23-1127_q861.pdf">here</a>.

News articles about the Heath case are available <a href="https://news.bloomberglaw.com/federal-contracting/justices-to-weigh-whats-a-government-dollar-in-fcc-fraud-case">here</a> and <a href="https://www.law.com/nationallawjournal/2024/11/04/high-court-seems-wary-of-telecoms-appeal-in-whistleblowers-false-claims-act-victory/">here</a>.

News

Related People