Kevin is an accomplished litigator with deep experience defending clients in class action and health care related litigation. Kevin co-chairs the firm's Class Action Practice, and ably represents clients in a wide variety of non-securities class claims, with a specific focus on consumer and data privacy class actions.
On the consumer class action side of his practice, Kevin represents health care payers and providers, retail and consumer brands, and financial services providers in a wide variety of consumer protection class actions. He has deep experience defending cases alleging unfair and deceptive trade practices, false and misleading advertising, employment discrimination, violations of landlord/tenant law, and financial fraud, among others. Kevin has guided clients through complex, multistate class action and understands that no single strategy fits every case He works with each client to understand their unique needs and develop a strategy that meets the company’s specific objectives.
Kevin has also represented a number of clients in data privacy class actions that allege improper use/disclosure of personal data. His clients in this area include retail and consumer brands, software and technology companies. health care-related entities, and financial services providers.
A significant focus of his practice is representing health care-related companies in a wide variety of disputes, including not only class actions, but also contract claims, post-acquisition disputes, government investigations, and False Claims Act lawsuits. Kevin’s health care-related clients have included pharmacies, PBMs, hospitals, clinical laboratories, diagnostic imaging providers, equipment manufacturers, pharmaceutical companies, and managed care organizations.
Kevin's extensive trial experience includes civil bench trials and jury trials in federal and state courts, as well as arbitrations before American Arbitration Association panels. He has appeared in state and federal courts nationwide.
Kevin has spoken on national panels concerning class action and privacy litigation, and has written extensively on class actions, privacy litigation, fraud and abuse litigation, and unfair trade practice litigation.
Kevin is an accomplished litigator with deep experience defending clients in class action and health care related litigation. Kevin co-chairs the firm's Class Action Practice, and ably represents clients in a wide variety of non-securities class claims, with a specific focus on consumer and data privacy class actions.
Experience
Privacy and Data Security
- Represent large life insurance and annuity provider in a set of class actions consolidated as part of a large MDL arising from the compromise by threat actors of MOVEit secure file transfer software.
- Represented large regional food wholesaler in class action arising from exploit that exposed employee data; obtained dismissal of unfair trade practices and other common law claims, and then negotiated a class settlement.
- Represented group of affiliated automobile dealerships in a class action concerning threat actor compromise of internal data systems.
- Represented pharmacy chain in class action alleging that transfers of prescription records in connection with acquisitions of independent pharmacies violated privacy rights of patients whose records were transferred; obtained dismissal of most alleged claims, decertified the class, and then prevailed at trial.
- Represented pharmacy chain in class action alleging that program to send informational mailings to pharmacy customers violated their privacy rights; partially defeated initial class certification motion, then obtained class decertification and prevailed on the merits of the class representative claim at summary judgment.
Health Care and Life Sciences
- Represent health plans in False Claims Act lawsuit alleging the wrongful retention of overpayments under a program to provide health care services to active duty and retired military personnel and their families.
- Represent regional emergency hospital group in class action alleging improper and/or excessive billing for in-house clinical laboratory services.
- Represented large medical supply company in connection with a whistleblower action alleging that the resolution of certain rebate disputes with a managed care company resulted in illegal kickbacks and violation of the federal False Claims Act.
- Defended pharmaceutical company against class action alleging that unsolicited faxes inviting health care providers to an educational seminar violated the TCPA, obtaining dismissal of all claims.
- Represented large regional health system in connection with an action seeking entry of a consent judgment to resolve state and federal antitrust claims and permit acquisitions of two community hospital systems.
- Defended large national clinical laboratory against claims that its agreements with large managed care companies resulted in purported illegal kickbacks, giving rise to violations of the False Claims Act. Identified the grounds on which the defendant obtained dismissal, establishing a precedent that was affirmed in the federal Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
- Obtained dismissal of a “junk fax” class action brought under the TCPA in connection with informational faxes sent to a health care benefit administrator’s network of providers.
- Have represented multiple health care clients in confidential investigations and arbitrations.
Consumer Goods and Professional Services
- Represent large regional bus company in class action alleging that the practice of separately charging fees in addition to the fares for travel on its busses violates state consumer protection laws and various common law duties.
- Represent multiple automobile dealership group against class actions alleging that compensation of inside sales employees violated state wage, overtime, and Sunday pay requirements
- Represented national manufacturing trade associations in connection with submission of amicus briefs concerning class certification appeals pending before the U.S. Supreme Court and multiple federal circuit courts of appeal
- Represented national oil change service franchise operator in class action alleging that that the defendants misrepresented oil change intervals recommended for customers’ cars. Obtained favorable individual settlement in exchange for dismissal of class claims
- Obtained voluntary dismissal of class action brought against a community bank alleging fraudulent and deceptive marketing practices in connection with the marketing of interest-bearing checking accounts.
- Defended large private equity firms in a class action alleging that defendants engaged in bid rigging and market allocation in connection with large-cap leveraged buyout transactions.
- Defended national retailer against class action alleging violation of statute prohibiting collection of zip codes in connection with credit card transactions. Obtained individual settlement and voluntary dismissal of class claims.
Construction and Real Estate
- Represent former owner and operator of residential apartment complex in class action alleging violations of laws governing handling of security deposits and submetering of water and sewer utilities.
- Represent an owner and operator of residential rental properties in a class action alleging a failure to properly repair, preserve and maintain units located in a subsidized housing project.
- Defended a construction industry labor union against claims that enforcement of subcontracting requirements in its collective bargaining agreements violated Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act. Crafted and argued winning summary judgment motion dismissing plaintiff’s antitrust claims.
viewpoints
Challenge to False Claims Act Qui Tam Provisions Fails in an Initial Attempt to Revive Long-Dormant Arguments as to Constitutionality Under Article II
December 7, 2023 | Blog | By Kevin McGinty, Keshav Ahuja
This July, we detailed the Supreme Court’s surprising revival in United States ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Resources, No. 21-1052 (S. Ct. June. 16, 2023), of the question of whether the qui tam provisions of the False Claims Act (“FCA”), see 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)(1), violate the Executive Branch’s exclusive grant of authority under Article II of the United States Constitution. In Polansky, a lengthy dissent by Justice Thomas questioned whether the False Claims Act qui tam provisions violated the Appointments Clause and Take Care Clause of Article II of the United States Constitution, arguments that had been endorsed by the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) in the 1989, though ultimately repudiated by DOJ just seven years later. A concurrence by Justice Kavanagh, joined by Justice Barrett, stated that “the Court should consider the competing arguments on the Article II issue in an appropriate case.” Shortly after Polansky was decided, a defendant in a declined qui tam case pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama accepted Justice Kavanagh’s invitation, and moved to dismiss on Article II grounds. In a decision entered in November, the District Court rejected that challenge.
Blowing the Whistle on the False Claims Act Qui Tam Provisions: Dissent and Concurrence in Polansky Invite Constitutional Challenge to the Predominant Source of FCA Litigation
July 17, 2023 | Blog | By Kevin McGinty, Keshav Ahuja
Do the qui tam provisions of the False Claims Act (FCA), see 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)(1), violate the Executive Branch’s exclusive grant of authority under Article II of the United States Constitution? This long-dormant question has been revived in a surprising context. In its recent decision in United States ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Resources, No. 21-1052 (S. Ct. June. 16, 2023), the Supreme Court affirmed the government’s authority to intervene to dismiss a whistleblower action, even after initially declining to intervene in the case. Knowledgeable FCA practitioners expected this result. Less expected was Justice Thomas’s dissent, which argued that the case should have been remanded to allow the parties to brief and argue whether Article II forbids allowing private citizens to maintain FCA claims on behalf of the government. A concurrence by Justice Kavanagh (joined by Justice Barrett), while rejecting Justice Thomas’s call for a remand, nonetheless stated that “the Court should consider the competing arguments on the Article II issue in an appropriate case.” With three justices expressing interest in this question—and only four justices being required to grant certiorari—health care enforcement defense attorneys should now consider whether to raise the constitutionality of the FCA’s qui tam provisions when relators move forward to litigate cases that the government declines to pursue.
Illinois Supreme Court’s Latest BIPA Ruling Increases Risk and Uncertainty as to the Scope of Damages Available Under the Statute
February 28, 2023 | Blog | By Trust D. Kupupika, Kevin McGinty
EnforceMintz: False Claims Act Statistical Year in Review — A Study in Contrasts
February 27, 2023 | Article | By Kevin McGinty
Mintz's Health Care Enforcement group analyzes trends in False Claims Act (FCA) investigations and lawsuits using data compiled its Qui Tam Database, the Department of Justice's (DOJ) annual report of FCA statistics, and the DOJ’s discussion of FCA enforcement trends.
EnforceMintz — 2022 Teed Up Two False Claims Act Issues That the Supreme Court Is Poised to Answer in 2023
February 9, 2023 | Blog | By Samantha Kingsbury, Kevin McGinty
Over the last year, a few important questions related to False Claims Act (FCA) cases have garnered significant attention. Two of those questions ultimately made their way to the Supreme Court. In one case, which has already been argued, the Court addresses whether the government has authority to dismiss an FCA case brought by a private citizen on the government’s behalf (a qui tam action) after originally declining to intervene and, if so, the applicable standard of judicial review. More recently, the Court has agreed to hear two cases that address whether a defendant’s “objectively reasonable” interpretation of ambiguous statutory language presents a cognizable defense to “knowledge” under the FCA. We cover both of these issues in more detail.
EnforceMintz Newsletter — Health Care Enforcement Year In Review & 2023 Outlook
February 9, 2023 | Article | By Karen Lovitch, Brian Dunphy, Grady Campion, Kathryn Edgerton, Cory S. Flashner, Samantha Kingsbury, Kevin McGinty
Mintz’s Health Care Enforcement Defense Practice regularly provides a comprehensive examination of health care fraud enforcement trends in its new EnforceMintz newsletter. The inaugural issue delved into False Claims Act cases and enforcement activity related to telemedicine, Medicare Advantage, opioids, kickbacks, and more.
Supreme Court Justices Agree to Hear Second FCA Issue This Term
January 19, 2023 | Blog | By Samantha Kingsbury, Kevin McGinty
As many of our readers are likely aware, last week the Supreme Court agreed to hear a second False Claims Act (FCA) issue this term. Having previously accepted and heard argument on a case concerning the government’s authority to dismiss an FCA whistleblower case after declining to intervene, the Court has now granted certiorari to hear two cases addressing what constitutes a “knowing” violation of the FCA. Hanging in the balance is the fate of two lower court decisions that endorsed a powerful defense to FCA liability.
Eighth Circuit Adopts Stricter But-For Causation Standard for False Claims Act Claims based on Anti-Kickback Violations
August 18, 2022 | Blog | By Kevin McGinty, Rachel Yount
In a significant win for False Claims Act (FCA) defendants, the Eighth Circuit recently reversed a district court decision that defendants violated the FCA premised on violations of the Anti-Kickback Statute (AKS). The Eighth Circuit adopted a stricter but-for causation standard for FCA claims based on AKS violations, holding that, in order to prevail on these claims, the government must prove that FCA defendants would not have submitted claims for particular items or services to Medicare or Medicaid absent the illegal kickbacks.
Webinar Recording: Health Care Enforcement Year in Review & 2022 Outlook
February 16, 2022 | Webinar | By Grady Campion, Randy Jones, Samantha Kingsbury, Karen Lovitch, Kevin McGinty
Health Care Enforcement Year in Review & 2022 Outlook
February 11, 2022 |
News & Press
The Best Lawyers in America 2025 Recognizes 184 Mintz Attorneys across 56 Practice Areas
August 15, 2024
187 Mintz attorneys have been recognized by Best Lawyers® in the 2025 edition of The Best Lawyers in America©. Notably, three Mintz attorneys received 2025 “Lawyer of the Year” awards, and 64 firm attorneys were included in the 2025 edition of Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch.
Twenty-Five Mintz Attorneys Named To Boston Magazine’s Top Lawyers List
November 21, 2023
BOSTON – Twenty-five Mintz attorneys have been named to Boston Magazine’s Top Lawyers list.
Twenty-Eight Mintz Attorneys Named To Boston Magazine’s Top Lawyers List
November 22, 2022
In its second annual edition, 28 Mintz attorneys were named to Boston Magazine’s Top Lawyers list.
2017 Health Care Enforcement Review: Trends In FCA Cases
January 16, 2018
Spokeo Ruling Deals Blow To Cos. But May Have Silver Lining
August 15, 2017
Justices Level Class Action Playing Field In Xbox Ruling
June 12, 2017
Target Data Breach Deal's Hiccup Puts Focus On Standing
February 2, 2017
Health Care Enforcement Review And 2017 Outlook: Part 4
January 19, 2017
Spokeo Split: How High Court's Ruling Is Being Interpreted
December 7, 2016
Eighty-Four Mintz Attorneys Named 2016 Massachusetts Super Lawyers and Rising Stars
October 18, 2016
Home Depot Appeal To Test Banks' Data Breach Footing
July 7, 2016
Supreme Court Decision 'Huge David v. Goliath Victory'
March 23, 2016
Attorneys React To High Court's Tyson Class Action Ruling
March 23, 2016
Tyson Ruling Tees up More Class Action Evidence Fights
March 23, 2016
Justices Hand Class Action Plaintiffs Second Win This Term
March 23, 2016
5 Privacy Litigation Developments You May Have Missed
January 26, 2016
Report Shows 'Explosion' in Health Care Whistleblower Suits
January 18, 2016
Analysis: Unusual Ruling in Massachusetts Breach Case
January 7, 2016
Events & Speaking
Kevin is an accomplished litigator with deep experience defending clients in class action and health care related litigation. Kevin co-chairs the firm's Class Action Practice, and ably represents clients in a wide variety of non-securities class claims, with a specific focus on consumer and data privacy class actions.
Recognition & Awards
Best Lawyers in America: Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions - Defendants
Massachusetts Super Lawyers: Class Action
Boston Magazine Top Lawyers – Class Action
Martindale-Hubbell AV Preeminent