DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

§ 1871

Citation
§ 1871
Parent Document
P. ex rel. etc. v. Hebb (2017)
Jurisdiction
California (state)
Effective Date
2017-12-19
Original Source
https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4453096/p-ex-rel-etc-v-hebb/ ↗

Other Sections in This Document (759)

Full Text

572 chars 
14  The fact that an IFPA qui tam lawsuit is brought on behalf of the relator and
the People does not change our analysis. The successful relator is entitled to a percentage
of the penalties ultimately recovered on behalf of the People, as a bounty for bringing the
action, so by definition the lawsuit is brought on his or her behalf as well. It does not
follow that the lawsuit seeks to remedy a direct harm to the relator, such that the workers’
compensation exclusivity rule would require the relator to pursue penalties before the
Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board.