Whistleblower
LEG500
Hope E Cassady
Dr. Ellen Kapalko, Esq.

Key Characteristics of a Whistleblower

Generally a whistleblower is a person who is currently or was formerly employed by a company and he or she believes that the company has or is participating in practices of unlawful, deceitful, or unethical behavior in order to benefit, usually in the form of monetary gains. Whistleblowers are usually well educated individuals, often in the position of a senior or leadership role. They are generally driven by their moral and ethical belief that they have a duty to report any form of abuse that results in the attempt of a company or individual to be unfair or unjust in their actions for personal gain. It is the whistleblowers ethical and moral belief that gives them the motivation to report any allegations of fraudulent or unethical behavior in the work place. In the 2014 recently settled case against Medtronic Corporation, a business developer who was employed for the company alleged that the company gave “kickbacks” to doctors that would speak at business events to promote the use of their cardiac rhythm products. The allegations stated that “Physicians should determine the best course of treatment for their patients based on sound medical judgment, not on any special treatment that they receive from the manufacturer” (Perriello, 2013). It was reported that the physicians involved in promoting the use of Medtronic’s devices received free tickets for airlines, sporting events, and restaurants. According to Mass Device, an on line medical reporting journal, Medtronic agreed to pay more than $9.9 million to settle the whistleblower lawsuit alleging that it provided kickback schemes in order to sell its product. According to the report, the whistleblower was terminated from his employment and is therefore, no longer employed by the company. The report stated that the whistleblower was expected to receive a monetary compensation in the amount of $1.1 million (Waichman, 2014).
Whistleblower justification In determining if the whistleblower was justified in reporting the allegations one of the main things to consider is whether or not, by providing kickbacks to physicians to promote their product, was Medtronic doing serious harm to the public? In a review, it was noted that while the product was not found to be faulty the physicians were in fact persuaded to promote the product over other similar and equal products, based on the additional kickbacks they received. The physician’s failed to use good sound medical determination and evaluation of products prior to promoting the use of Medtronic devices. This lack of judgment was determining factor and, gave reason to believe, that the product could do serious and considerable harm to the public. Another example was that the whistleblower did have access to documentation, which provided further evidence to outside observers, that the company practice of providing kickbacks to physicians could likely pose a serious danger to the public or to the user of the product. Therefore, it is understood that the whistleblower did have good reason to believe, that by going public with his allegations, changes could be made to stop the unethical and illegal practices of Medtronic’s.
Protection under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act In accordance with the Sarbanes-Oxley Act Section 806 (Protection for Employees of Public Traded Companies Who Provide Evidence of Fraud) it clearly states that no company may discharge, demote, suspend, harass, or in any other manner discriminate against an employee in the terms and conditions of employment because of any lawful act done by the employee. In this situation the employee was terminated from his position with the company. While the information surrounding the employee’s termination was not made public in the report there was enough support information that the employee did receive monetary compensation for his actions of whistle blowing. Additionally, due to the employees right to confidentiality the employees name was not released to the public (Prentice & Bredeson, 2010, p. 63).
References
Perrirllo, B. (2013, September 19). Whistleblowers accuse Masimo of concealing evidence | MassDevice. Retrieved from http://www.massdevice.com/news/whistleblowers-accuse-masimo-concealing-evidence?page=show
Prentice, R. A., & Bredeson, D. (2010). Student guide to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act: What business needs to know now that it is implemented (2nd ed.). Mason, OH: South-western/Cengage Learning.
Waichman, P. (2014, September 22). Medtronic Makes Final Payment in $11.1 Million Settlement over Kickbacks Lawsuit | Whistleblower Adviser. Retrieved from http://www.whistlebloweradviser.com/uncategorized/medtronic-makes-final-payment-in-11-1-million-settlement-over-kickbacks-lawsuit/