Summary A former cancer research physician at Northwestern University, Dr. Charles L. Bennett, agreed to a settlement in a federal False Claims Act Lawsuit after a former employee and whistleblower...

1 answer below »
Assignment is in the attached word document , also attached is the case study in the PDF


Summary A former cancer research physician at Northwestern University, Dr. Charles L. Bennett, agreed to a settlement in a federal False Claims Act Lawsuit after a former employee and whistleblower brought forth claims that Bennett misappropriated funds.  The suit alleged that Dr. Bennett and others submitted false claims under research grants from the NIH for goods and services that did not meet applicable NIH and government guidelines.  Please read Former Northwestern Physician to Pay the United States $475,000 to Settle Cancer Research Grant Fraud Claims  *** Address the problems in this case in terms of interpersonal communication*** Rather than focus on the moral dilemma of this case, focus on areas of potential communication breakdown, and think of how this situation could have been avoided with better communication practices in place.  The goal of this assignment is to analyze areas where potential issues arose due to poor communication procedures and offer recommendations for best practices for communication within a clinical research study to prevent this type of fraudulent behavior from happening in the future. ***Each Question Has to be answered*** 1. How can you apply the Four Cs of team Performance to this case? In terms of Context, what might we say about the culture of the organization in terms of reporting questionable practices within a study?  In terms of Competencies, what potential issues might exist that prevented clear communication, good decision making, and positive conflict management? In terms of Change, what factors might have prohibited the team’s ability to monitor the budget and make necessary changes? How might you address Composition in this case? 2. Who do you think is ultimately responsible for the decision and practices in this case? 3. Do you think power differentials affected the communication in this case? 4. What key factors of communication should be considered while devising a plan to prevent this type of fraudulent behavior in the future? 5. What are the potential long-term ramifications for Northwestern University due to the outcome of this case? 6. What best practices would you recommend to Northwestern to prevent this type of dilemma to occur in the future? 7. What other questions should you address to identify the problems found in this case? Search SEARCH FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Thursday, October 30, 2014 U.S. Attorneys » Northern District of Illinois » News Department of Justice U.S. Attorney’s Office Northern District of Illinois Former Northwestern Physician To Pay The United States $475,000 To Settle Cancer Research Grant Fraud Claims CHICAGO — A former cancer research physician at Northwestern University’s Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Center for Cancer in Chicago will pay the United States $475,000 to settle claims of federal research grant fraud. Dr. Charles L. Bennett agreed to the settlement in a federal False Claims Act lawsuit that was first made public last year after the government investigated the claims made by a former employee and whistleblower who will receive a portion of the settlement. In July 2013, Northwestern University agreed to pay the United States $2.93 million to settle identical claims against the university. Northwestern, which fully cooperated during the investigation, did not admit liability as part of the settlement. In a settlement agreement filed today in U.S. District Court, Dr. Bennett, of Columbia, S. Car., also did not admit liability, nor did the government concede that its claims were not well-founded. In a lawsuit filed in January this year, the government contended that Dr. Bennett submitted false claims under research grants from the National Institutes of Health. The settlement covers improper claims that Dr. Bennett submitted for reimbursement from the federal grants for professional and consulting services, food, hotels, travel, conference registration fees, and other expenses that benefited Dr. Bennett, his friends, and family from Jan. 1, 2003, through Aug. 31, 2010. The allegations were initially made in a civil lawsuit filed under seal in 2009 by Melissa Theis, who in 2007 and 2008 worked as a purchasing coordinator in hematology and oncology at Northwestern’s Feinberg School of Medicine. She will receive $80,750 from the settlement with Dr. Bennett, and earlier she received $498,100 from the settlement with Northwestern. Her suit, which the government later settled on her behalf, alleged that the defendants submitted false claims to the United States when Dr. Bennett and others directed and authorized the spending of grant funds on goods and services that did not meet applicable NIH and government grant guidelines. HOME ABOUT THE US ATTORNEY NEWS PROGRAMS EMPLOYMENT CONTACT US Former Northwestern Physician To Pay The United States $475,000 To Se... https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndil/pr/former-northwestern-physician-pay... 1 of 2 7/19/2021, 7:49 AM https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndil https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndil https://www.justice.gov/ https://www.justice.gov/ https://www.justice.gov/usao https://www.justice.gov/usao https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndil https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndil https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndil/pr https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndil/pr https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndil https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndil/about https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndil/meet-us-attorney https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndil/pr https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndil/programs https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndil/employment https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndil/contact-us The allegations were investigated by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the National Institutes of Health, and the U.S. Attorney’s Office. The government contended Northwestern improperly submitted claims to NIH for grant expenditures for items that were for the personal benefit of Dr. Bennett, his friends and family that were incurred in connection with grants as to which he was the principal investigator. The settlement with Dr. Bennett resolves the remaining claims and effectively ends the litigation. The agreement reserves the authority of any federal agency, including HHS, to take any administrative action, such as suspending or debarring Dr. Bennett from receiving future research grants. United States v. Charles L. Bennett, M.D., No. 09 C 1943 (N.D. Ill.). Dr. Bennett agreed to pay the settlement by Dec. 1, 2014. The agreement covers allegations that false claims were submitted to NIH for costs that Dr. Bennett incurred on his grant-funded research projects involving adverse drug-events, multiple myeloma drugs, a blood disorder known as thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura, and quality of care for cancer patients. Dr. Bennett allegedly billed those federal grants for family trips, meals and hotels for himself and friends, and “consulting fees” for unqualified friends and family members, including his brother and cousin. The settlement with Dr. Bennett was announced by the United States Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Illinois, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General – Chicago Region, and the Chicago Office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The United States was represented by Assistant U.S. Attorney Kurt N. Lindland. Settlement Agreement Component(s): USAO - Illinois, Northern Updated July 27, 2015 Former Northwestern Physician To Pay The United States $475,000 To Se... https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndil/pr/former-northwestern-physician-pay... 2 of 2 7/19/2021, 7:49 AM https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/usao-ndil/legacy/2015/06/11/pr1030_01a_0.pdf https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/usao-ndil/legacy/2015/06/11/pr1030_01a_0.pdf http://www.justice.gov/usao-ndil http://www.justice.gov/usao-ndil
Answered 1 days AfterSep 28, 2021

Answer To: Summary A former cancer research physician at Northwestern University, Dr. Charles L. Bennett,...

Insha answered on Sep 30 2021
130 Votes
Running Head: CASE STUDY ANALYSIS                            1
CASE STUDY ANALYSIS                                    8
CASE STUDY ANALYSIS
Table of Contents
Overview    3
The Four Cs of Interpersonal Communication and their Application    3
The Ultimate Responsibility    4
Application of Power Differentials    5
Key Factors of Communic
ation    5
Long Term Ramifications    5
Recommended Practices    6
Addressing Questions    6
References    8
Overview
The concept of interpersonal communication is a widely acknowledged factor that contributes towards the successful achievement of the desired outcomes in healthcare practices. In fact, there are some core components of these communication norms, which should be established prior to or while the communication is being structured (Manning, 2020). The following is the analysis of the settlements of the case between Dr. Bennett and United States Government as the various investigation agencies discovered inappropriate behavior of the expert in terms of disbursing the given funds.
Dr. Bennett, while working as a responsible person for Northwestern physician community, violated the basic principles of clinical practices and used the cancer research grant for personal gains. He accepted all allegations under the trial and settled the claims, giving specific portion of the claim to Melissa, the whistleblower against this fraud.
The Four Cs of Interpersonal Communication and their Application
At first, it is important to overview the concept of four Cs of the interpersonal communication and the way they are applicable to the provided case study. It is a well-known fact that during the process of establishing interpersonal communication standards, one has to set the context (Okoro, Washington & Thomas, 2017). This varies from person to person and various mindsets affect the course of communication.
Dr. Bennett simply used the funds for his personal pleasures without setting the context of his duty—nor he took interest in informing anyone responsible in the system to know about the disbursing of the funds received for cancer research. The second C, competency, is also associated with this case study. Under his authority, Dr. Bennett violated his rights to use the funds for something that did not guide him well.
Additionally, when put to trial, Dr. Bennett did not admit his liability initially which made the allegations appear relevant. The District Court found that his claims to address the concerns related to the fraud were not well grounded, as he could not present evidences to spend the funds in the desired segments.
The investigation committee had enough proofs to show that he used the given grant for hotel stays, personal expenses and providing consultation to unqualified people. Altogether, this added to the intensity of allegations, posing serious questions over the competency of Dr. Bennett as a qualified clinical...
SOLUTION.PDF

Answer To This Question Is Available To Download

Related Questions & Answers

More Questions »

Submit New Assignment

Copy and Paste Your Assignment Here