Skip to main content

Jane T. Haviland

Associate

[email protected]

+1.617.348.4473

Share:

Jane’s practice focuses primarily on health care enforcement defense. Jane defends laboratories, physicians, and other clients facing government investigations and qui tam litigation arising from alleged violations of the federal False Claims Act (FCA), the Stark Law, and alleged criminal and civil violations of the anti-kickback statute. Jane assists clients with negotiation and structuring of global settlements with the US Department of Justice and its US Attorneys’ Offices and state Attorneys' General Offices as well as corporate integrity agreements with the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General. Jane also defends clients in consumer protection and unfair or deceptive trade practices investigations initiated by the Federal Trade Commission or state Attorneys’ General Offices. Jane also advises clients regarding cannabis licensing, compliance, and regulatory matters.

Recent victories to which Jane has contributed include:

  • Successfully defended a national laboratory against a whistleblower’s qui tam complaint.
  • Defense verdicts on summary judgment in multi-jurisdictional product liability disputes involving FDA-approved pharmaceutical drugs and assay test development.
  • Defense verdict on partial summary judgment in a bet-the-company case involving a dispute between the majority owner of a multi-billion dollar company and private equity investors.

Jane also maintains an active pro bono practice, succeeding on an appeal before an administrative law judge and securing social security benefits for her client. Jane has also appeared in family and probate court on behalf of her clients in guardianship and custody matters. Most recently, Jane’s pro bono practice has focused on social justice efforts, including participating in CORI sealing clinics and conducting research specific to assisting individuals with criminal records in understanding their public housing options. Jane also participates in the Lawyers Clearinghouse Legal Clinic for the Homeless, through which Mintz attorneys provide legal representation to residents of Boston-area homeless shelters.

While attending law school at night and working full time for the State Auditor’s Office, Jane was the winner of the National Moot Court New England Regional Competition and the two-time winner of the Tom C. Clark Appellate Advocacy Competition. She also served as Comment Editor of the Suffolk University Law Review. She graduated first in her class from Suffolk Law’s evening program.

viewpoints

On June 26, 2019, a divided Supreme Court in Kisor v. Wilkie issued one of its most important administrative law decisions in decades. The Supreme Court decided to uphold, but dramatically narrow, the doctrine of judicial deference to agency regulations, known as Auer deference, but at the same time unanimously found for petitioner James Kisor in overturning the Federal Circuit’s affirmance of the Board of Veteran’s Appeals decision to deny part of his claim for Vietnam War disability benefits.  We discuss below the majority and minority opinions on Auer deference, the narrow unanimous holding of reversal, and the importance of this decision.
Read more
The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued policy guidance on May 6, 2019, about providing credit in False Claims Act (FCA) settlements to corporations for “disclosure, cooperation, and remediation." DOJ has never previously issued guidance regarding credit in FCA matters. This guidance, coupled with the passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act in 2017 (which requires DOJ to specify the amount of “restitution” or “remediation” at the time of settlement), provides meaningful specificity as to what conduct constitutes disclosure, cooperation, and remediation, as well as data for evaluating whether credit is actually reflected in negotiated FCA settlements. This policy guidance is contained in the Justice Manual, Section 4-4.112.
Read more
Read about health care qui tam litigation trends for the 12 months that ended on January 31 and significant cases, including two involving the issue of medical necessity.
Read more
A circuit split on whether actual misuse of personal data is required to have standing to assert data breach claims remains unresolved. Last week the Supreme Court rejected a petition to review that issue in CareFirst v. Attias.
Read more
On February 24, 2015, Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. agreed to pay more than $16 million to settle charges that two of its subsidiaries allegedly paid $3.2 million in bribes that generated $14,122,535 in illicit profits. 
Read more
Read less

News & Press

News Thumbnail Mintz

Associates Jane HavilandKathryn Droumbakis, and Rachel Sposato co-authored an article published by Law360 discussing bankruptcy relief for employees in the cannabis industry.

Read less

Publications

Read less