Jason M. Crawford

Partner

Overview

When facing government investigations or high stakes civil litigation, clients trust Jason Crawford to evaluate allegations, identify risks, and formulate strategies to achieve the appropriate resolution. Jason advises and advocates for government contractors, health care organizations, and companies from regulated industries in matters involving civil, criminal, and administrative enforcement, with a particular focus on the False Claims Act (FCA).

As a litigator, Jason has defended government contractors, drug manufacturers, grant recipients, health care companies, importers, and construction companies sued under the FCA by whistleblowers and the Department of Justice (DOJ) in federal courts throughout the country. He also helps clients conduct complex internal investigations and respond strategically to Office of Inspectors General inquiries, grand jury investigations, search warrants, and civil investigative demands.

Jason previously served as a DOJ Trial Attorney in the Civil Division, Fraud Section where he investigated and litigated FCA cases involving government contractors, importers, and health care companies. He also previously worked with the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia where he prosecuted federal criminal cases.

A recognized thought leader on FCA developments, Jason has written and presented extensively on the fraud statute, and he is a co-host of the Let’s Talk FCA podcast. 

Career & Education

|
    • Department of Justice
      Trial Attorney, Civil Division, Fraud Section, 2020–2023
      U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia, 2020–2023
    • Department of Justice
      Trial Attorney, Civil Division, Fraud Section, 2020–2023
      U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia, 2020–2023
    • Georgetown University, B.A.
    • University of Oxford, Brasenose College, M.A./B.A.
    • Georgetown University Law Center, J.D.
    • Georgetown University, B.A.
    • University of Oxford, Brasenose College, M.A./B.A.
    • Georgetown University Law Center, J.D.
    • District of Columbia
    • Virginia
    • Supreme Court of the United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
    • U.S. Court of Federal Claims
    • U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
    • U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
    • U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois
    • U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
    • U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia
    • U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut
    • District of Columbia
    • Virginia
    • Supreme Court of the United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
    • U.S. Court of Federal Claims
    • U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
    • U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
    • U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois
    • U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
    • U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia
    • U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut

Jason's Insights

Client Alert | 1 min read | 10.22.24

Trick or Treat? What You Need to Know About a First-of-its-Kind Decision Declaring FCA Qui Tam Provisions Unconstitutional

Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle of the District Court for the Middle District of Florida recently declared the False Claims Act qui tam provisions unconstitutional in U.S. ex rel. Zafirov v. Fla. Med. Assocs., LLC, -- F.Supp.3d --, 2024 WL 4349242 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 30, 2024), turning up the heat on a simmering constitutional fight that is increasingly likely to reach the Supreme Court in the next few years. Judge Mizelle's decision was the first to strike down the FCA qui tam provisions, but not the first to consider the issue. Arguments challenging the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions proliferated after Justice Thomas indicated some doubt about the qui tam device in his dissent in U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Res., 599 U.S. 419 (2023). But every other judge to consider the issue has upheld the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions....

Representative Matters

False Claims Act Defense

  • (4th Cir. and D.S.C.) Represented United Airlines in United States ex rel. Grant v. United Airlines Inc., 912 F.3d 190 (4th Cir. 2018), a qui tam whistleblower lawsuit alleging False Claims Act violations involving a $1.4 billion Air Force contract for the maintenance of C-17 aircraft engines. The district court granted the motion to dismiss with prejudice, and the Fourth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the substantive FCA counts. 
  • (C.D. Cal.) Defended a national managed care organization in a qui tam suit based on the fraudulent inducement and implied certification theories of liability. The court granted our motion to dismiss. 
  • (N.D. Ga.) Defended a subcontractor in False Claims Act litigation where the Department of Justice intervened in case alleging that the subcontractor had provided defective material on a government construction project. The case settled on terms favorable to the defendant.
  • (D.N.J.) Represented a drug manufacturer in a qui tam whistleblower lawsuit alleging False Claims Act violations involving allegations of fraudulent pharmaceutical testing methods. The case was dismissed.
  • (D.D.C.) Defended an individual in a False Claims Act suit brought by the Department of Justice alleging that the individual misrepresented the designated entity status of her company. After two years of motions practice and discovery, the counts against our client were voluntarily dismissed.
  • (E.D. Pa.) Successfully litigated a motion to dismiss a qui tam complaint filed against construction company.
  • (S.D. Ill.) Represented a national partnership of physicians in a qui tam suit where the relator alleged that the defendant was “upcoding” when billing CMS. The case was dismissed.
  • (W.D.N.Y.) Represented a construction company in False Claims Act suit where the Department of Justice alleged that the company misrepresented its status as a Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business. The case settled on terms favorable to the defendant.
  • (W.D. Va.) Represented manufacturer in qui tam suit alleging that the manufacturer had misrepresented the performance of products sold to federal and state governments. The case was dismissed.
  • (E.D. Mich.) Represented large defense contractor in False Claims Act suit brought by the Department of Justice.  The case resulted in a favorable settlement and release.  
  • (M.D. Fla.) Defended hospital operator against qui tam suit based on hospital’s alleged early discharge of Medicare patients. The case was dismissed.

Investigations

  • (W.D.N.C.) Represented company in parallel civil and criminal investigations in case involving allegations of small business fraud. The civil FCA matter was settled on favorable terms and no criminal charges were filed against the company.
  • (E.D. Cal.) Advised a managed care organization on strategic response to a Civil Investigative Demand served on the organization in connection with a False Claims Act investigation. Persuaded the government not to pursue FCA action.
  • Conducted large-scale internal investigation for a Fortune 100 company involving, inter alia, mandatory disclosure and False Claims Act considerations. 
  • (E.D. Va.) Performed internal investigation following the execution of a search warrant at the headquarters of government contractor and counseled company in matter involving parallel civil and criminal investigations.  
  • Conducted internal investigation regarding a manufacturer’s alleged shipment of non-conforming goods. 
  • Managed response to a Defense Criminal Investigative Service subpoena in connection with False Claims Act investigation involving allegations of defective pricing on government contract. Persuaded Department of Justice not to pursue the action.
  • Conducted internal investigation into potential violations of the Anti-Kickback Act.
  • (E.D. Pa.) Represented a major food supplier in a False Claims Act investigation relating to federal Prime Vendor contracts for the provision of food in Afghanistan. Persuaded the Department of Justice to decline intervention and the relator voluntarily dismissed the qui tam suit. 

Civil Litigation and Disputes

  • (E.D. Va.) Represented government contractor in action brought under Defend Trade Secrets Act against former employee. The court granted our motion for a preliminary injunction requiring the former employee to return company documents.
  • (D.C. Super. Ct.) Defended government contractor in action alleging fraud. The court granted our motion to dismiss.
  • (ASBCA) Represented government contractor at trial in which the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals denied the Army’s defective pricing claim against the contractor.
  • (D.D.C.) Defended a publicly chartered travel corporation in connection with False Claims Act retaliation action alleging fraud. The case was settled for a nominal amount and dismissed.

Jason's Insights

Client Alert | 1 min read | 10.22.24

Trick or Treat? What You Need to Know About a First-of-its-Kind Decision Declaring FCA Qui Tam Provisions Unconstitutional

Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle of the District Court for the Middle District of Florida recently declared the False Claims Act qui tam provisions unconstitutional in U.S. ex rel. Zafirov v. Fla. Med. Assocs., LLC, -- F.Supp.3d --, 2024 WL 4349242 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 30, 2024), turning up the heat on a simmering constitutional fight that is increasingly likely to reach the Supreme Court in the next few years. Judge Mizelle's decision was the first to strike down the FCA qui tam provisions, but not the first to consider the issue. Arguments challenging the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions proliferated after Justice Thomas indicated some doubt about the qui tam device in his dissent in U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Res., 599 U.S. 419 (2023). But every other judge to consider the issue has upheld the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions....

|

Jason's Insights

Client Alert | 1 min read | 10.22.24

Trick or Treat? What You Need to Know About a First-of-its-Kind Decision Declaring FCA Qui Tam Provisions Unconstitutional

Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle of the District Court for the Middle District of Florida recently declared the False Claims Act qui tam provisions unconstitutional in U.S. ex rel. Zafirov v. Fla. Med. Assocs., LLC, -- F.Supp.3d --, 2024 WL 4349242 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 30, 2024), turning up the heat on a simmering constitutional fight that is increasingly likely to reach the Supreme Court in the next few years. Judge Mizelle's decision was the first to strike down the FCA qui tam provisions, but not the first to consider the issue. Arguments challenging the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions proliferated after Justice Thomas indicated some doubt about the qui tam device in his dissent in U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Res., 599 U.S. 419 (2023). But every other judge to consider the issue has upheld the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions....