Opinion ID: 61750
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Were Fried's claims based on a public disclosure?

Text: The district court held that Fried's claims were based on publicly disclosed information. On appeal Fried argues that the district court misapprehended the nature of his claim. Specifically, Fried alleges that while information about the last day exemption program was publicly disclosed, the specific allegations or transactions of fraudulent claims by West ISD were not disclosed until Fried revealed the conduct. To the contrary, the record shows that the very essence of the allegations made by Fried had been publicly disclosed on several occasions prior to Fried's suit in 2005. For example, the General Accounting Office received an inquiry through its FraudNET system in 2002 which questioned the use of the last day exemption by Texas school districts. As a result of this inquiry, that Office issued a report on the programs (including their potential for abuse) in August 2002. U.S. Gov't Accountability Office, Revision to the Government Pension Offset Exemption Should Be Reconsidered (2002) (presented to the H. Comm. on Ways and Means, S. Comm. on Soc. Security). In addition, Congressional hearings were held in 2003 and 2004 in which the loophole was debated  and its use by Texas school districts was specifically noted. H.R. 4391, The Public Servant Retirement Protection Act: Hearing on H.R. 4391 Before the Subcomm. on Social Security of the H. Comm. on Ways and Means, 108th Cong. (2004); Social Security Provisions Affecting Public Employees: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Social Security of the H. Comm. on Ways and Means, 108th Cong. (2003). Finally, West ISD's program itself was disclosed in trade publications and on the internet. Thus, much of Fried's information duplicates what was uncovered in governmental investigations. Further, a large section of the evidentiary basis of Fried's claims is the information received pursuant to the Texas Public Information Act (the Texas equivalent to the federal Freedom of Information Act). This court has explicitly stated that a response to a public records request constitutes a public disclosure under the FCA. Reagan, 384 F.3d at 176. In fact, we have held that if a qui tam action is even partly based upon public allegations or transactions then the jurisdictional bar applies. United States ex rel. Fed. Recovery Servs., Inc. v. E.M.S., Inc., 72 F.3d 447, 451 (5th Cir.1995). Even if Fried uncovered some nuggets of new, i.e., non-public, information, his claims of fraud are based at least in part on allegations already publicly disclosed. Therefore, we hold that Fried's qui tam suit is based on publicly disclosed information. His claims thus are barred unless he can show that he is the original source of the information underlying his claim.