NachtLaw, P.C.

David Nacht Discusses Academic Collaboration, Due Process, and the Legacy of the China Initiative at FAPA’s 2026 Inaugural Conference

2026-08-05T20:21:10Z

David Nacht recently joined an invited panel at FAPA’s 2026 Inaugural Conference addressing government investigations of professors whose research involves connections to China. The discussion brought together lawyers who have represented academics caught up in these investigations. David drew on his experience representing Dr. "X", a recently retired University of Michigan professor and nationally recognized scientist in sensory biology, in a case that received significant public attention. Dr. "X"'s research has advanced our understanding of how animals perceive and process signals including temperature, light, sound, touch, smell, and taste. His laboratory’s discoveries have helped establish important foundations for the study of sensory biology, neural circuits, behavior, aging, and longevity. In his remarks, David emphasized an essential distinction: concerns about state-sponsored espionage are real, and the United States has a legitimate interest in protecting national security. But, he argued, many government actions directed at Chinese and Chinese-American professors have not centered on genuine threats involving classified information or stolen intellectual property. Instead, investigations have often focused on technical or administrative issues—such as foreign-affiliation disclosures and complex federal grant paperwork. The concern, David explained, is that minor compliance errors can be used as a basis to subject researchers to sweeping investigations and pressure them away from legitimate collaborations with Chinese universities. This critique reflects broader concerns surrounding the Department of Justice’s former China Initiative, launched in 2018. In several high-profile cases, prosecutors relied on alleged false statements or disclosure failures rather than traditional espionage claims, and some cases were later dropped or collapsed amid questions about the government’s understanding of ordinary academic practices and rules. The consequences reach beyond individual cases. Aggressive enforcement can chill lawful international research partnerships, create fear among scholars of Chinese descent, and cause talented researchers to step away from federally funded research altogether. The Justice Department ended the China Initiative label in 2022, but the underlying debate continues: how can the country protect research security without treating routine academic collaboration or bureaucratic mistakes as evidence of disloyalty? David’s panel discussion underscored the importance of proportionality, due process, and a clear-eyed approach—one that addresses genuine national-security risks while protecting the openness, fairness, and international exchange that make American research institutions strong.

Employment Law and how the core areas of wrongful termination, wage disputes, and workplace rights function in practice

2026-08-05T17:59:37Z

Employment law balances workplace disputes by checking employer actions against federal and state protections. While most jobs are "at-will," employers cannot legally fire you or withhold pay in violation of established statutes. Here is how the core areas of wrongful termination, wage disputes, and workplace rights function in practice: 1. Wrongful Termination You cannot sue an employer simply for being unfair, but you can take action if they fire you for an illegal reason.

Discrimination: Firing based on protected characteristics like race, sex, age (over 40), religion, or disability.
Retaliation: Firing a worker because they filed a complaint, reported a hazard, or exercised their legal rights.
Whistleblowing: Termination for refusing to participate in illegal activities or reporting corporate fraud.
Breach of Contract: Firing an employee before a specified contract period ends without "good cause".
Next Steps: If your situation involves discrimination, you must first file a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) before you can legally file a lawsuit.

2. Wage and Hour Disputes These disputes center around tracking hours accurately and paying the correct rates under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

Unpaid Overtime: Forcing non-exempt employees to work over 40 hours a week without paying 1.5 times their regular hourly rate.
Off-the-Clock Work: Requiring workers to perform duties before clocking in, during unpaid lunches, or after clocking out.
Misclassification: Labeling regular employees as independent contractors (1099) to avoid paying benefits or overtime.
Next Steps: You can track your hours independently and file an unpaid wage claim directly through the U.S. Department of Labor Wage and Hour Division.

3. Core Workplace Rights Federal and state frameworks protect daily safety, medical leave, and personal privacy.

Protected Leave: The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) guarantees job-protected, unpaid leave for specific family or medical reasons.
Workplace Safety: The right to work in an environment free of recognized hazards, protected by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).
Pay Transparency: An increasing number of states protect your right to discuss wages with coworkers without facing retaliation.

Case Won! False allegations of sexual assault and victim of online defamation

2026-07-13T21:13:06Z

On June 29, 2026, a jury returned a unanimous verdict for our client who was accused of sexually assaulting a former student. Additionally, the jury found that our client was the victim of online defamation from the former student’s father. The defamation caused the loss of reputation, business, and well-being of our client given the online posts generated immediate response from the community. The online posts began with a “TRIGGER WARNING” followed by allegations of the collection and distribution of pornography, violent threats, supplying alcohol to minors, blackmail, and sexual assault of multiple children. Although our client did not fight the case online, he did fight in court—and won.

Partner Fabiola Galguerra led a trial team consisting of herself, Senior Counsel Adam Dreher, and Paralegal Whitney Wuebben, in what amounted to two separate cases. First, the defense of our client against the false allegations of sexual assault. And second, the prosecution of claims of online defamation. The jury sided with our client on both fronts and awarded further exemplary damages. The trial was the culmination of nearly two years of litigation within the Washtenaw County Trial Court. There were eight depositions, numerous requests for production, multiple FOIA requests, and extensive motion practice. The complexity of the case required nearly a week of testimony and two days of jury deliberation. At the conclusion, the jury was unanimous.

4 signs your licensing board report was done in bad faith

2026-07-13T13:03:44Z

When you work in a specialized field, your professional license is the foundation of your livelihood. Unfortunately, a small disagreement with your employer can sometimes lead to them using professional board reports as a tool for punishment. To protect your career, it is important to recognize the signs that a report filed against you may be motivated by retaliation, not real disciplinary concerns.

1. Suspicious timing

Sometimes, the date of the report can demonstrate the intent behind it. Perhaps the filing date was after you submitted your resignation or engaged in a protected activity, such as:

Filing a workers' compensation claim
Reporting sexual harassment
Blowing the whistle on company malpractice

When the timing aligns with any of these events, it can be easier to prove the filing was in bad faith.

2. An absence of previous internal discipline

Imagine your most recent performance reviews are positive, yet you suddenly hear about your improper conduct in a licensing board report. You can still dispute this complaint if your employer never reprimanded you or issued a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) prior to it.

3. Disparate employee treatment

When looking over the report, try to see if your peers have committed similar or worse errors but were not penalized like you. It can reflect a bigger problem that your employer has a history of looking the other way when it comes to favored employees.

4. Inaccuracies about your work

Thoroughly reading the report can help you see if it contains information that factually contradicts your performance. Your supervisor directly oversees your work and should know about your achievements. Consistently delivering results when the report says otherwise can be a clear warning sign of bad faith.

Helping you fight back

When facing a retaliatory board complaint, remember that it is an allegation and not the permanent loss of your license. A lawyer can help you find the right legal strategy to challenge the report and protect your career.

2026’s “Whole-of-Government” Healthcare Fraud Crackdown: What Providers Need to Know Now

2026-05-18T20:34:58Z

In early 2026, federal authorities dramatically escalated their fight against healthcare fraud, launching what many are calling a true “whole-of-government” enforcement campaign. Through coordinated executive action, financial crime oversight, and aggressive payment suspensions, healthcare providers are facing one of the most sweeping anti-fraud environments in recent years. For organizations participating in Medicare, Medicaid, Telehealth, hospice, or durable medical equipment sectors, the message is clear: compliance expectations have changed—and enforcement is accelerating. A New Era of Coordinated Federal Enforcement The federal government’s 2026 healthcare fraud strategy is defined by speed, coordination, and prevention rather than traditional “pay-and-chase” recovery methods.

Executive Order Establishes New Anti-Fraud Task Force

In March 2026, a new Executive Order directed federal agencies to strengthen anti-fraud systems across Medicare and Medicaid, creating a dedicated anti-fraud task force with broad authority. This initiative emphasizes:

Enhanced pre-payment review of Medicare and Medicaid claims
Immediate tightening of provider enrollment and screening requirements
Rapid interagency coordination between CMS, DOJ, HHS-OIG, and Treasury
Strict compliance timelines for providers and suppliers

This marks a major shift from retrospective enforcement toward front-end prevention, meaning providers may face administrative intervention before payments are ever issued. FinCEN Sounds the Alarm: Fraudulent Filings Surge 330% On March 30, 2026, FinCEN issued Advisory FIN-2026-A001 in response to a staggering 330% increase in suspicious healthcare-related filings. The advisory warns financial institutions about growing fraud schemes involving:

Unnecessary or medically unwarranted care
Kickback arrangements
Stolen patient identities
Fraudulent Medicare and Medicaid billing networks

Notably, the advisory outlines more than 20 red flags designed to help banks and financial institutions detect suspicious healthcare transactions. This expands enforcement beyond providers alone—financial institutions are now active gatekeepers in healthcare fraud detection. CMS and DOJ Shift Toward Immediate Payment Suspensions Perhaps the most significant operational change in 2026 is the rise of immediate payment suspensions. Rather than waiting for lengthy audits or pursuing overpayment recovery after the fact, CMS and DOJ are increasingly freezing payments to providers based on suspected fraud indicators alone. Examples include:

California hospice providers facing Medicare suspensions
DMEPOS suppliers subject to enrollment restrictions
High-risk providers flagged through predictive billing analytics

This proactive approach can create immediate cash flow disruption, even before formal adjudication. Key Fraud Enforcement Targets in 2026 Federal agencies are concentrating resources on several high-risk categories: Telehealth Telehealth remains under intense scrutiny, especially where regulators see:

Virtual-only care models with limited patient relationships
High-volume remote prescribing
Improper lead generation or marketing agreements
Potential kickback structures

Providers relying heavily on remote care should ensure documentation; prescribing practices, and referral relationships are defensible. Hospice Hospice enforcement is focused on allegations involving:

Billing for beneficiaries who are not terminally ill
Inflated reimbursement claims
Improper patient certifications

Given recent suspensions, hospice providers should expect aggressive reviews of eligibility determinations. DMEPOS Durable Medical Equipment, Prosthetics, Orthotics, and Supplies (DMEPOS) remain a longstanding enforcement priority, now intensified through:

A six-month Medicare enrollment moratorium for certain suppliers
Heightened supplier screening
Greater transaction monitoring

Medicaid Revalidation Accelerates CMS is also pressing state Medicaid agencies to rapidly revalidate high-risk providers. This means providers may face:

Faster credentialing reviews
Expanded documentation requests
Increased license and ownership verification
Potential enrollment termination for incomplete compliance

For multi-state organizations, inconsistent state timelines could create additional operational complexity. What This Means for Healthcare Providers The legal and operational landscape is shifting quickly. Providers should prepare for: Increased Administrative Risk Payment suspensions, enrollment holds, and pre-payment reviews may occur faster than in previous years. More False Claims Act Exposure DOJ and whistleblowers are likely to leverage enhanced data analytics to support FCA investigations. Advanced Billing Surveillance Federal agencies are increasingly using predictive analytics to detect billing anomalies before enforcement actions begin. Practical Compliance Priorities for 2026 To reduce exposure, healthcare organizations should prioritize:

Internal billing audits focused on telehealth, hospice, and DMEPOS
Review of referral, marketing, and compensation structures
Strengthened patient eligibility documentation
Medicaid and Medicare enrollment accuracy checks
Financial transaction monitoring for suspicious payment patterns
Rapid-response protocols for audits or payment suspensions

Bottom Line The 2026 federal healthcare fraud crackdown signals a decisive move toward preventive enforcement, faster intervention, and broader institutional oversight. For providers, this is more than a regulatory update—it is a structural enforcement shift. Organizations that proactively strengthen compliance infrastructure now will be better positioned to withstand increasing scrutiny, payment disruption risks, and litigation exposure. In this environment, healthcare compliance is no longer just about avoiding penalties—it is becoming a core operational survival strategy.

Navigating executive contracts as a healthcare professional

2026-05-18T20:11:39Z

Executive compensation packages are often complex because they reflect much more than just a person’s salary. Many of these packages include performance bonuses, deferred compensation, retention awards, long-term incentives, severance rights and restrictive covenant obligations. In hospitals and other healthcare organizations, these arrangements are often shaped by many factors. Some of these include regulatory concerns, tax rules, business goals and board oversight. Individuals who are reviewing an executive compensation package in the healthcare industry should consider these important factors.

David Nacht has been negotiating contracts for health care executives, physicians and midlevel professionals for 30 years.

Compensation structure in administrative healthcare packages

For healthcare leaders, compensation terms can affect financial security, as well as career mobility. In some cases, packages that appear competitive on the surface may include conditions that limit payment, create a repayment risk or delay vesting if employment doesn’t last beyond a specific date. Many healthcare organizations tie executive pay to specific criteria, including compliance measures, quality metrics, patient access, growth goals, financial performance and leadership milestones. While these can be useful, they should be stated clearly so both parties have a full understanding of how performance will be measured and when compensation will be earned. Another consideration to review is deferred compensation. Payment timing, forfeiture provisions and tax treatment can all affect the actual value of this benefit. It’s also critical to check the severance provisions to determine how being terminated with cause or without cause, resignation, retirement and nonrenewal impact the provisions. Restrictive covenants are also a consideration because they can negatively impact future career moves. These include things like confidentiality, noncompete and no disparagement clauses. Clawback provisions allow healthcare organizations to recover bonuses or incentives if there are issues that are found out after the payment is made. These provisions are common, but they shouldn’t be overly broad. Healthcare executive compensation packages are typically negotiated in a highly regulated setting. Having the agreed-upon terms clearly stated in the contract benefits both the medical organization and the executive. It may be beneficial for the executive to have someone on their side who can review the contract and determine if the terms are legally stated.

Recent bad AI legal advice I have seen

2026-03-31T14:11:28Z

AI is cool. But it is not (yet?) a competent lawyer. Recently, I have become besieged with new clients coming in with cogently written bad ideas for cases that sound plausible. When you have a problem, share the facts with the lawyer. Don't tell him or her what legal theories to pursue based on AI. After you and the lawyer are talking about what happened that brought you in for the consult, then it is fine to ask about a particular legal theory you read about from AI or heard from a friend or saw on a TV show. But do not assume AI is right and your lawyer is wrong. AI is simply wrong way too much of the time; it fails to ask key questions; and it omits relevant facts. Let's take employment law - something I know a little bit about since I have been practicing it since 1994. I am licensed to practice in four states and have been admitted to federal courts where I bring employment cases in other states. My office gets about 30 inquiries a day - mostly from fired employees. AI is not licensed and therefore does not care that the common wisdom one finds on the web that "non-compete agreements are generally unenforceable" is flat out wrong in most US states. Or just recently, I had a very bright, successful, highly compensated executive who informed me he had a claim for "wrongful termination" when no such claim exists in most states. AI had completely missed the claim a client DID have under a federal law governing some (but not all) severance plans. AI failed to warn another sharp executive that by downloading corporate documents, he was exposing himself to liability from his former employer under trade secrets and other claims. So, ask questions of your lawyer but don't wing your severance negotiation using AI. Experience counts, and the internalized database an experienced lawyer has comes from a variety of outcomes and sometimes painful learning experiences. Sometimes you need the surgeon to tell you that the surgery is too risky; or the lawyer to tell you that you can damage your career by raising the employment law issue AI tells you to raise. The database of AI does not exercise any judgment and does not care what happens to you, your career, and your family. We do. About the author ... David Nacht is a tenacious trial lawyer, strategist, and negotiator at the peak of his career, known for advocating for clients at every stage—from students to executives. He is especially committed to expanding due process rights for the accused, whether in the workplace or in the face of federal or prosecutorial investigations. Nacht’s client-centered approach prioritizes listening, protecting careers and reputations, and thinking several steps ahead. One of the few attorneys to regularly practice both criminal and civil law in federal and state courts, he leverages insights from each to strengthen the other—always guided by a focus on dignity, strategy, and clear-headed decision-making.

Severance clawback provisions and their enforceability

2026-03-30T17:49:44Z

If you have just received a severance package from your employer, there might be a clause buried in the fine print that allows your former employer to take some or all of that money back. Learning how a clawback provision works and when courts enforce these terms might prevent you from making mistakes later.

What does a clawback provision do?

A clawback provision is a contract clause that gives an employer the right to reclaim severance payments if you trigger certain conditions. These conditions usually relate to actions you take after signing the deal and include:

Breaking a legally enforceable non-compete or non-solicitation term that complies with Michigan law
Sharing private company details
Making public remarks that paint the company in a negative light

Depending on the agreement, a triggered clawback may require full repayment of severance already received, suspend future payments or both.

Is this clause enforceable in Michigan?

Michigan is an at-will employment state, meaning either you or your employer can generally end the working relationship at any time, provided the reason is lawful. While state law does not require employers to offer severance, an executed agreement is treated by courts as a binding contract. For the terms to be enforceable, the agreement must use clear and specific language. You must also provide your consent freely and knowingly, without undue influence or misrepresentation. Additionally, the provision must rest on proper consideration. This means the employer must offer you something of value beyond what you have already earned. Courts may invalidate clawback clauses that rely on vague terms or impose penalties that are disproportionate to the alleged breach. If you are 40 or older, the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act provides further protections. Under this federal law, you must be given at least 21 days to review the terms of the contract (or 45 days if your termination is part of a group layoff) and seven days to revoke your acceptance after signing.

What should you consider before signing the agreement?

A careful review of the full agreement before signing can help you understand what it requires. Language that mentions repayment obligations, loss of benefits or conditions tied to your conduct after leaving the job may be particularly relevant. Consulting with an attorney during this process can also offer valuable insight. A lawyer familiar with Michigan contract law may be able to identify potential problem areas and assist with clarifying terms that feel uncertain.

Key strategies to renegotiate your healthcare executive contract

2026-02-19T16:03:39Z

Your healthcare leadership role may change over time. Duties grow, and goals shift. Your contract may no longer match your daily work. A review may help you assess pay, authority and risk before renewal or job changes. Role changes or organizational shifts can prompt a closer look at contract terms. A focused approach may help you identify provisions that affect your work now and in the future.

Evaluating compensation structures and performance expectations

Start with your salary and bonus structure, then look at your current targets and goals. Compare your present duties with what the contract describes. If your role expanded, consider whether compensation changed with it. Clear language around performance terms may help you understand expectations. When pay and duties align more closely, negotiation discussions may feel more focused.

Reassessing restrictive covenants and termination protections

Some clauses may affect future job options. Your state law may allow noncompete terms when they are reasonable. Consider reviewing the following:

Geographic limits in noncompete clauses
Duration limits in post-employment restrictions
Nonsolicitation provisions covering staff or patients
Notice requirements for without-cause termination
Severance provisions tied to role changes

In Michigan, many jobs follow at-will employment rules. This means either side may end the job at any time unless a contract says something different. Looking at exit terms may help you understand possible risks during a job change.

Refining governance authority, responsibilities and organizational alignment

Your role may shift as the organization changes. As duties evolve, confirm who you report to and what authority you hold. Look at your decision-making scope and daily control. Then clarify oversight duties and committee responsibilities. Clearly written terms may help reduce confusion later.

What to weigh before revisiting contract terms

You may notice that some contract terms no longer reflect your current role. Certain areas may feel unclear or out of balance. Timing, such as renewal periods or leadership changes, can influence when discussions take place. A narrower focus on specific contract terms may help keep conversations clear while allowing flexibility in the outcome.

Why the Discovery of Evidence on Federal Land Doesn’t Automatically Mean Federal Court Jurisdiction

2026-01-12T20:59:34Z

It’s a common assumption: if evidence of a crime is discovered on federal land, the case must belong in federal court. While that might seem logical, it’s not how jurisdiction works—especially when it comes to criminal activity. Long ago, before the United States was just a sparkle in our founders’ eye, it was tradition for crimes to be adjudicated by individuals where the crime occurred. The location of crime became the definitive place for where a crime was prosecuted and at times could provide what sort of punishment should be expected. But how do two levels of government, governing over the same territory, interact with this tradition? When creating a unified government for the newly independent thirteen states, the founders of our country sought to limit the amount of authority the Federal Government would have over the states when prosecuting crimes. One of the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution enshrined this idea, “The power not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” U.S. Const. amend. X. One of those powers not delegated to the United States was the police power inherently held by the states. In theory, the best way to hold to the tradition of allowing localities to prosecute crimes would be to save that authority to the government more localized—the states. Simply: The states had criminal laws long before the Federal Government did. The first federal judiciary act established the office(s) of United States Attorney, with each district being within each state. At that time, a single attorney for each district would be responsible “to prosecute in (each) district all delinquents for crimes and offenses cognizable under the authority of the United States, and all civil actions in which the United States shall be concerned.” 1 Stat. 92. That limited “authority of the United States” requires federal prosecutors, even to this day, to ensure any crime prosecuted by the United States is done in a manner compatible with the Tenth Amendment. The United States Constitution lays out very specific grants of police power relegated by the states for the federal government. Those grants are specifically enumerated and anything else is left for the states. The most common example of those specific grants of authority in the criminal context is the regulation of commerce amongst the states. U.S. Const. Art. I. § 8. Congress can enact laws requiring specific regulations of commerce, and the United States Attorneys can prosecute those who do not follow those regulations. Otherwise, the federal government cannot prosecute the offense. Federal Land Is Not a Jurisdictional Shortcut Federal land often creates confusion because people equate federal ownership with federal authority over all disputes connected to that land. But ownership and jurisdiction are different things. You can own stock in a company, but that doesn’t mean you’re able to enter any of that company’s buildings whenever you’d like. In the same manner, even if a crime is committed on federal land, it does not mean that the federal government must prosecute it. Instead, the Constitution grants exclusive jurisdiction to “all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dockyards, and other needful Buildings.” U.S. Const. Art. I. § 17. Ultimately, what matters is the consent of the states for the federal government to acquire jurisdiction. But even with the state’s consent, the United States need not take jurisdiction after the purchase of property. There is a lot involved before the federal government must prosecute crimes within its jurisdiction. States often still prosecute crimes that occur on federal land. The Practical Takeaway By tradition, our system is set up to prefer local prosecution of crimes. States inherently retain the power to prosecute crimes and generally, it is only when territory is exclusively within the possession of the United States that states must acquiesce. Understanding the distinction between ownership and jurisdiction helps avoid unnecessary fights over potential punishments and keeps the focus where it belongs: on the merits of the case. About the author ... Adam Dreher is a trial lawyer at NachtLaw who helps clients navigate high-stakes employment and criminal matters with confidence. Drawing on nearly a decade as a prosecutor—and experience at the local, state, and federal levels—Adam brings a disciplined, trial-ready approach to every case. A former U.S. Army Cavalry Scout and combat veteran, he is known for thorough preparation, strategic thinking, and steady courtroom advocacy. Clients rely on Adam for clear guidance, strong defense, and results-driven representation when it matters most.