Janet Chandler, Ph.D., brought this qui tam action as relator on behalf of the United States under the False Claims Act (“FCA”), 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729 et seq., to recover funds that allegedly were obtained fraudulently by defendants Hektoen Institute for Medical Research (“Hektoen”) and Cook County, Illinois, in the administration of a drug treatment program. The district court dismissed the suit against Cook County, holding that, as a municipality, the County was Immune from punitive damages under the FCA. Dr. Chandler appealed and, for the reasons set forth in this opinion, we reverse in case No. 00-4110.
Cook County also appealed or, in the alternative, requested mandamus, from the district court’s discovery order requiring Cook County to turn over certain drug treatment records. We believe the district court’s discovery order does not comply with federal privacy regulations. Therefore mandamus will issue requiring the district court to vacate its discovery order and to proceed in conformity with this opinion.
I
BACKGROUND
A. Cook County as a Party
Dr. Janet Chandler brought this qui tam action against Hektoen and Cook *971 County for alleged misconduct in their handling of a federal research grant. 2 Cook County Hospital (“CCH”) applied for, and received, a $5 million grant from the National Institute of Drug Abuse (“NIDA”) to study the treatment of drug-dependent pregnant women. Along with its grant application, CCH submitted an assurance of compliance plan to the Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”), representing that CCH would comply with federal human subject research regulations. The grant initially was awarded to CCH, but was transferred to Hektoen, an affiliate of CCH established to receive funds and conduct medical research. The program was dubbed “New Start”; it was designed to provide treatment and conduct research. New Start provided treatment to drug-dependent pregnant women and studied the effect of a stepped-up battery of medical and social services on its patients, compared with a control group receiving the typical treatment available in the community.
On September 1,1993, Dr. Chandler was hired as New Start’s project director. While in this post, Dr. Chandler came to believe that the defendants were violating the terms of the grant and federal regulations. Further, she believed they were misrepresenting the success of the New Start program and submitting false progress reports to the government, which included information on “ghost” program participants who did not exist. Dr. Chandler alleged that CCH did not follow mandatory protocol for research on human subjects and for dispensing methadone to pregnant women, did not obtain informed consent from study participants, did not obtain thorough medical or drug histories, provided substandard care, failed to keep accurate records and failed to randomize participants.
In 1994, Dr. Chandler began to speak up, informing physicians at CCH that she was concerned with the handling of the New Start program. She told them that the program was violating the terms of the grant, the assurance of compliance plan and pertinent federal regulations. Ultimately Dr. Chandler was discharged and brought this action. She alleged that CCH retaliated against her by revoking some of her responsibilities and then firing her in January 1995, after she was accused of lying in her report to NIDA on the study’s alleged failure.
Cook County moved to dismiss on the ground that it was not a “person” within the meaning of the False Claims Act.
See
31 U.S.C. § 3729(a).
3
The district court denied Cook County’s motion to dismiss, holding that the County was a person
*972
within the meaning of the FCA.
See Chandler v. Hektoen Inst.,
In 2000, the Supreme Court decided
Vermont Agency of Natural Resources v. United States ex rel. Stevens,
B. Discovery
Dr. Chandler brought this action on January 27, 1997. She sought the records of the New Start program in discovery. The voluminous records contained inter alia physicians’ notes, consent forms, medical records, pаtient questionnaires and drug test results. The County resisted, pointing to federal regulations requiring researchers to keep drug and alcohol treatment records confidential. On January 7, 1999, the district court granted Dr. Chandler’s motion to compel and ordered Cook County to produce the records with patient-identifying information redacted. Notice was sent to the former New Start patients, informing them that “Janet Chandler has been given permission by the Court to review your New Start records, so long as all the identifying information and other personal information on the records is blacked out.” R.72, Ex.B. The notice also provided the former patients with forms to reply if they wanted to object to the disclosure or if they consented to the disclosure of identifying information. The patients were informed that if they did nothing, the redacted records would be disclosed to Dr. Chandler and her representatives.
Over the next year or so, the parties were contentious about the quality of the redacted records. Dr. Chandler’s attorneys claimed that many records were missing or incomplete. There was a problem with the index created by Cook County to obscure patient identifying information in compliance with the court’s discovery order. The court ordered the County to produce a “key” to cross-reference original and substituted file numbers because the substituted file numbers could not be linked with a large quantity of study data. In early 2001, Dr. Chandler went back to the district court seeking access to the unredacted patient records.
On March 5, 2001, the district court ordered Cook County to turn over unre-dacted patient records to Dr. Chandler’s representatives and asked the parties to draft protective orders. On March 14, *973 2001, the district court entered a protective order governing the disclosure of un-redacted patient records to Dr. Chandler’s attorneys. The order limited disclosure to three of Dr. Chandler’s attorneys and one paralegal for ten days. They were prohibited from disclosing information to anyone, including Dr. Chandler and were not permitted to record any of the information. Cook County sought an emergency stay pending appeal. After briefing from both sides, the motions panel of this court granted the stay on June 12, 2001 and denied Dr. Chandler’s motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction. We consolidated the two appeals.
II
DISCUSSION
The False Claims Act establishes civil penalties for “[a]ny person” who, inter alia, “knowingly presents, or causes to be presented, to an officer or employee of the United States Government ... a false or fraudulent claim for payment or approvаl,” or who “conspires to defraud the Government by getting a false or fraudulent claim allowed or paid.” 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1), (3). Such a person “is liable to the United States Government for a civil penalty of not less than $5,000 and not more than $10,000, plus 3 times the amount of damages which the Government sustains be cause of the act of that person.” Id. § 3729(a). The FCA may be enforced by the Attorney General, id. § 3730(a), or by a private person, known as a relator, who brings a qui tam suit “for the person and for the United States Government ... in the name of the Government,” id. § 3730(b). A qui tam suit is filed in camera, and remains under seal for sixty days. Id. § 3730(b)(2). The relator must present all material evidence to the Government; during the sixty day period, the Government may intervene and proceed with the action itself. Id. If the Government declines to assume responsibility for the suit, the relator may proceed on his own. Id. § 3730(b)(4)(B). If the suit is successful, the relator receives a portion of the Government’s award. Id. § 3730(d). If the Government takes over, the relator will receive between 15 and 25 percent of the Government’s proceeds, “depending upon the extent to which the person substantially contributed to the prosecution of the action,” plus reasonable expenses. Id. § 3730(d)(1). If the relator proceeds on his own, he will receive between 25 and 30 percent of the proceeds, plus reasonable expenses. Id. The qui tam relator is also protected by a “whistleblower” provision which provides relief to any employee who suffers retaliation for bringing a claim under the FCA or assisting an employee-relator who does so. Id. § 3730(h). The whistleblower protection extends to any relator who brings a claim in good faith, whether or not it is successful.
A.
We must determine whether Cook County is a “person” within the meaning of the FCA. 4
*974 The issue is one of statutory interpretation. Therefore we must ascertain the will of Congress; we must determine whether Congress, when it enacted the FCA, intended counties to be defendants in qui tam suits.
We begin, as always, with the text of the statute. Congress provides no definition of “person” within § 3729. There have been only cosmetic changes to this section since the FCA was first adopted in 1863; therefore, the definition of person has remained constant throughout the FCA’s history.
See Stevens,
The structure of the statute does not appear to bar a finding that counties may be sued under the FCA. The FCA creates a mechanism designed to discover and correct fraud against the federal government. In a qui tam suit, the relator must inform the Department of Justice of his intention to sue and must keep his suit under seal for sixty days while the Justice Department decides whether to prosecute the action itself. 5 The parties have not suggested anything in the structure of the FCA, when read as a whole, that would require anything other than- a straightforward reading of the text.
The 1986 amendments to the FCA did not- change the meaning of “person” nor did these legislative changes explicitly include or exclude suits against municipalities. However, three of the changes to the FCA made by Congress in 1986 are relevant to this ease. That year, Congress adopted what is now 31 U.S.C. § 3733, which permitted the Attorney General to issue a Civil Investigative Demand (“CID”) to “any person” who “may be in possession, custody, or control of any ... information relevant to a false claims law investigation.” See 31 U.S.C. § 3733(a)(1). A CID requires its recipient to produce documents, answer interrogatories and give oral testimony. Id. Political subdivisions of states were included within the CID provision’s definition of “person.” See id. § 3733(l). Second, Congress adopted a “whistleblower” statute, protecting relators and their witnesses from retaliation by employers. See id. § 3730(h). Finally, Congress increased the penalties for violations, from $2,000 per claim and double damages to $5,000 $10,000 per claim and treble damages. Id. § 3729(a). 6 *975 We believe that a proper understanding of each of these changes points to a finding of continued municipal liability.
The CID provision was added to provide the Justice Department with a new weapon to discover fraud and investigate false claim suits. That section defines “person” as “any natural person, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal entity, including any Stаte or political subdivision of a State.” Id. § 3733(l)(4). 7 The CID’s definition of person at least demonstrates that Congress intended that states and their subdivisions be potential targets of false claim investigations. Although this definition does not demonstrate Congressional intent to impose liability on municipalities, it certainly does not support an inference that Congress intended them to be exempt. Every change made in 1986 made it more likely for FCA claims to be filed and to succeed.
Further, the legislative history of the 1986 amendments, in particular that accompanying the whistleblower provision, makes it likely that the Congress, when voting on the amendments, was aware that the FCA might reach municipalities. The Senate Judiciary Committee’s report states that “[t]he False Claims Act reaches all parties who may submit false claims. The term ‘person’ is used in its broad sense to include partnerships, аssociations, and corporations ... as well as States and political subdivisions thereof.” S. Rep. 99-345 at 8 (1986), reprinted in 1986 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5266, 5273. 8 In discussing the whistleblower provision, the Committee report defines “employers” to “include public as well as private sector entities.” See id. at 34-35. Unless municipalities are subject to suit under the FCA, Congress would have no reason to be concerned that municipalities might retaliate against their employees for bringing FCA claims. Given that states are excluded from the definition of “person” within the FCA, the only public entities remaining are municipal corporations and other political subdivisions of states which are not arms or agencies of state government.
*976 This reading of the 1986 amendments is compatible with other evidence that Congress’ purpose in enacting those amendments was to increase the effectiveness of the Act. See S.Rep. No. 99-345 at 2 (1986) (“In order to make the statute a more useful tool against fraud in modern times, the Committee believes the statute should be amended in several significant respects. The proposed legislation seeks not only to provide the Government’s law enforcers with more effective tools, but to encourage any individual knowing of Government fraud to bring that information forward.”). Congress also increased the percentage of the Government’s proceeds a relator may receive where the Government assumes responsibility for the action. Before 1986, a relator’s share was capped at ten percent of the award. See 31 U.S.C. § 3729(c)(1) (1983). Now, a court has discretion to give the relator between fifteen and twenty-five percent, but fifteen percent is the minimum award. 31 U.S.C. § 3730(d)(1). Before 1986, if a relator proceeded on his own, his potential award was capped at twenty-five percent, see 31 U.S.C. § 3729(c)(2) (1983); now twenty-five percent is the minimum he would receive, with a maximum of thirty percent. 31 U.S.C. § 3730(d)(2). These changes both encourage qui tam suits and encourage cooperation with the Department of Justice.
The 1986 amendments also added several provisions which deter frivolous suits and give courts the discretion to restrict a relator’s participation in suits when the Government has intervened. The district court can restrict the relator’s participation if he remains in the case for purposes of harassment, 31 U.S.C. § 3730(c)(2)(C); the court may stay discovery if the relator’s actions interfere with the Government’s investigation, id. § 3730(c)(4). If the basis for the suit was information that was already available, a district court may limit a relator’s recovery to 10 percent of the award, id. § 3730(d)(1), or bar the suit entirely unless the Attorney General prosecutes the сase, id. § 3730(d)(4)(A). If the relator himself planned or was guilty of violations of the FCA, the court may dismiss his suit. Id. § 3730(d)(3). If the relator proceeds with the suit himself and the court finds that the suit was “clearly frivolous, clearly vexatious or brought primarily for purposes of harassment,” the court may award the defendant attorneys’ fees and expenses. Id. § 3730(d)(4). Finally, the FCA bars suits against members of Congress, members of the judiciary and senior executive branch officials. Id. § 3730(e)(2). These changes gave courts more discretion to regulate qui tam suits and to weed out illegitimate actions.
Congress also changed the knowledge element of the offense, making success more likely. Some confusion had arisen about the standard of intent necessary for a finding of liability under the FCA. Congress adopted § 3729(b) which defines knowing and knowingly to mean that a person “(1) has actual knowledge of the information; (2) acts in deliberate ignorance of the truth or falsity of the information; or (3) acts in reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of the information, and no proof of specific intent to defraud is required.” 31 U.S.C. § 3729(b). This definition sets a fairly low standard, making it easier for the United States to prevail in FCA actions.
We must conclude that a study of the text and structure of the Act, supported by the available legislative history, leads to the conclusion that Congress intended to include counties within the meaning of “person.”
B.
Cook County nevertheless urges that we are prohibited from interpreting
*977
the statute to include counties because of the municipalities’ traditional, commonlaw immunity from punitive damages. The Supreme Court in
Stevens
stated that, by increasing the damages from double to treble in 1986, the FCA was transformed from a remedial statute to a punitive one.
See Stevens,
We begin with the Supreme Court’s decision in
City of Newport v. Fact Concerts,
Compensatory damages, designed to make the victim of unconstitutional behavior whole, are a permissible basis of recovery and, although punitive damages, properly calculated, serve many salutary purposes when a truly egregious situation is presented, they remain a windfall for the fully compensated plaintiff. There is always the danger that the “deep pocket” of the municipality’s tax base will tempt a jury to succumb to an unprincipled determination.
See Newport,
In
Newport,
the court identified a “two-part approach” for “scrutinizing a claim of immunity proffered by a municipality.”
Id.
at 259,
Given the Supreme Court’s analysis in
Newport,
we must examine the purpose of municipal immunity from punitive damages to determine if it is consistent with
*978
the False Claims Act. In the context of § 1983, the Supreme Court wrote in Newport: “Compensation was an obligation properly shared by the municipality itself, whereas punishment properly applied only to the actual wrongdoers.”
Newport,
However, not all punitive damage regimes are identical. Indeed, there are important differences between those available under § 1983 and those imposed by the FCA. Under the FCA, at least a portion of the recovery will come from the monies taken by the municipality through its false claims, whereas under § 1983 both the compensatory and punitive damages come directly from the tax base. Further, in the FCA context, the taxpayers themselves have been enriched by the fraudulent conduct of the municipality. Presumably any ill-gotten gains from the federal government produce more services or lower taxes. Thus, even though some of the burden of the FCA’s treble damages shifts to the local taxpayers, this shift is not unjust, because the local taxpayers have already received, without justification, some of the benefit. Congress’ precision in crafting the FCA’s damage regime suggests to us that it carefully considered all its options before enacting this particular system. Unlike § 1983, the FCA does not need to borrow a common-law conception of damages; Congress has provided a clear and consistent remedy for all violations of the FCA. And, unlike under § 1983, we need not worry about the “broad discretion traditionally accorded to juries in assessing the amount of punitive damages,”
Newport,
The FCA damages scheme mandated by Congress is not divided into compensatory and punitive damages. Under the FCA, damages are limited to $10,000 per claim plus three times the amount of the false claims. 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a). Although the trebling of the actual loss is indeed a significant enhancement and punitive in nature, it is nevertheless a response specifically determined by Congress as necessary for the effective operation of the FCA. It could not be more clear that Congress, in adopting this approach, addressed the situation with careful precision as to what sort of damage scheme was necessary to achieve the goals of the statute. Notably, Congress did make an exception to the general measure of damages when the person who has defrauded the Government cooperates before having learned of the investigation. 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(7)(A)-(C). In such a case, the court has discretion to impose double, rather than treble, damages.
Id.
The damages are imposed by the judge, not the jury.
See In re Schimmels,
The Supreme Court has noted that the definition of “person” has remained unchanged since the adoption of the FCA in 1863.
See Stevens,
Congress was aware of the Court’s decisions in
Newport
and
Bornstein;
it was only in 2000 that the Supreme Court characterized the FCA’s remedy as punitive. Congress also was aware of the presumption that municipalities are included within the meaning of the term “person,”
see Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Serv.,
Dr. Chandler and the United States suggest that, if we hold Cook County to be immune from punitive damages, we ought to hold further that Cook County may still be sued under the FCA, but be held to a lower measure of damages. In our view, the legislative record affords us no justification for undertaking such judicial blue-penciling of the statute. Congress has provided one remedy for violations of the False Clаims Act. If municipalities are immune from punitive damages, then they are, effectively, immune from liability under the FCA. There is no indication that Congress intended the FCA to apply to municipal entities but at a lower penalty.
See United States ex rel. Garibaldi v. Orleans Parish Sch. Bd.,
Billions of dollars flow from the federal government to municipalities each year. Congress, in creating, in 1863, and then strengthening, in 1986, a comprehensive mechanism designed to remedy fraud against the federal government clearly determined that recipients of federal funds must be subject to such a deterrent. Given this legislative judgment, municipalities’ common-law immunity from suit is inconsistent with Congress’ purpose in adopting the FCA. Unlike § 1983, which creates a cause of action without specifying a remedy, the FCA includes a carefully crafted remedy for violations. Accordingly, despite the presumption against the imposition of punitive damages on municipalities, it is clear that Congress, in enacting the 1986 changes to the FCA, made a conscious choice to increase the recoverable damages while in no way indicating that it wished to exempt municipalities. Therefore, the interpretive presumption has been overcome.
C.
Nevertheless, Cook County contends, the Supreme Court’s decision in
Stevens
*980
mandates a different result. The district court, as had the Fifth Circuit,
see Garibaldi
The central holding of
Stevens
is that states are not within the FCA’s definition of “person” because of the “longstanding interpretive presumption that ‘person’ does not include the sovereign.”
Stevens,
Accordingly, counties are not only amenable to the FCA but also are subject to the same penalties as other defendants.
Ill
A.
In light of the above discussion, Cook County will once again be a party to this action. We therefore must address its appeal of the district court’s discovery order of March 14, 2001. Normally, discovery rulings are unappealable, because the disadvantaged party has a remedy at the end of the district court proceedings.
11
This court has held that a party seeking to obtain appellate review of a discovery order before judgment should accept a contempt citation, and then appeal.
See Allendale Mutual Ins. Co. v. Bull Data Sys. Inc.,
“Mandamus may not be used to get around the limitations on the appealability of interlocutory orders.”
Mulay Plastics, Inc. v. Grand Trunk Western R.R. Co.,
B.
We therefore turn to an assessment of Cook County’s contention that the district court’s order is violative of the statute and regulations.
Federal law restricts the disclosure of information obtained “in connеction with the performance of any program or activity relating to substance abuse education, prevention, training, treatment, rehabilitation or research” conducted by the United States or with federal money. 42 U.S.C. § 290dd-2. Disclosure is permitted with patient con sent, 42 U.S.C. § 290dd-2(b)(1), or “[i]f authorized by an appropriate order of a court of competent jurisdiction granted after application showing good cause therefor, including the need to avert a substantial risk of death or serious bodily harm,” id. § 290dd-2(b)(2)(C). “In assessing good cause the court shall weigh the public interest and the need for disclosure against the injury to the patient, to the physician-patient relationship, and to the treatment services.... [T]he court, in determining the extent to which any disclosure of all or any part of any record is necessary, shall impose appropriate safeguards against unauthorized disclosure.” Id. § 290dd2(b)(2)(C).
The regulations divide information into two categories — confidential and nonconfi-dential communications. The New Start records contain both. In both situations, when a court is preparing to order disclosure, notice must be sent to the patients and they must be afforded “[a]n opportunity to file a written response to the application, or to appear in person, for the limited purpose of providing evidence on the statutory and regulatory criteria for the issuance of the court order.” 42 C.F.R. § 2.64(b). Such notice must be “adequate.” Id. Notice was sent in 1999, after the district court’s ruling on January 7 of that year granting Dr. Chandler’s motion to compel. That notice informed patients that redacted copies of their records would be disclosed to Dr. Chandler’s counsel. By contrast, patients have not been notifiеd, and the March 14 order does not contemplate such notice, that unredacted copies of their records will be disclosed to Dr. Chandler’s representatives. To be adequate, notice must inform patients both of the nature of the disclosure and to whom the information will be disclosed. Patients must know what is at stake before they can make an informed decision about their potential intervention in Dr. Chandler’s lawsuit. Patients who may not have been concerned enough about the disclosure of redacted records to intervene may well wish to be heard if the court is prepared to order disclosure of unredacted records.
Once notice has been given, with respect to both confidential and other communications, the district court must find that “(1) other ways of obtaining the information are not available or would not be effective; and (2) the public interest and need for disclosure outweigh the potential injury to *983 the patient, the physician-patient relationship and the treatment services.” 42 C.F.R. § 2.64(d). If a patient does not consent, confidential communications may only be disclosed by court order if:
(1) The disclosure is necessary to protect against an existing threat to life or of serious bodily injury ... (2) The disclosure is necessary in connection with investigation or prosecution of an extremely serious crime, such as one which directly threatens loss of life or serious bodily injury, including homicide, rape, kidnapping, armed robbery, assault with a deadly weapon, or child abuse and neglect; or (3) The disclosure is in connection with litigation or an administrative proceeding in which the patient offers testimony or other evidence pertaining to the content of confidential communications.
42 C.F.R. § 2.63(a). Because none of those conditions apply here, any confidential communications must be redacted before Dr. Chandler’s representatives may view the records.
The district court’s discovery order violates these regulations. It permits four individuals, three of Dr. Chandler’s attorneys and a paralegal, to view all of the records for ten days. It places no restrictions on the type of information that will be made available to them. The statute and regulations do not contemplate even limited disclosure of non-confidential communications without notice or of confidential communications without one of the conditions of § 2.64 being satisfied. 12 Dr. Chandler maintains that she has no need to view confidential materials, therefore, the court should be able to craft an order which satisfies both the regulations and Dr. Chandlеr’s legitimate need to view some of the non-confidential communications.
Mandamus will issue requiring the district court to vacate its discovery order. Given the lapse of time between the 1999 notice and the disclosure, new notice should be sent to all patients whose records might be examined by Dr. Chandler’s representatives. Further, notice must be sufficiently clear that the New Start patients will understand, without the aid of counsel, what is at stake and what they must do to assert their rights. No disclosure may be made until sufficient time has passed to give the patients an opportunity to decide whether to intervene and to seek legal assistance.
Conclusion
Cook County is a person within the meaning of the False Claims Act and does not enjoy immunity from the FCA’s damages scheme. Therefore, the district court’s decision in 00-4110 is REVERSED and the case is Remanded with orders to reinstate Cook County as a рarty to this action. The district court’s discovery order runs afoul of federal privacy regulations and violates important private rights and public policies. Therefore, MANDAMUS will issue in 01-1810, and the district court is ordered to enter a new protective order consistent with this opinion. Each party shall bear its own costs in these appeals.
No. 00-4110 REVERSED and Remanded.
No. 01-1810 Mandamus Issued.
Notes
. Dr. Chandler initially sued Cook County Hospital in addition to these defendants. The hospital was found to have no identity independent of Cook County and was dismissed from the case.
See United States ex rel. Chandler v. Hektoen Inst.,
. § 3729 provides:
(a) Any person who — •
(1)knowingly presents, or causes to be presented, to an officer or employee of the United States Government or a member of the Armed Forces of the United States a false or fraudulent claim for payment or approval;
(2) knowingly makes, uses, or causes to be made or used, a false record or statement to get a false or fraudulent claim paid or approved by the Government;
(3) conspires to defraud the Government by getting a false or fraudulent claim allowed or paid; ...
is liable to the United States Government for a civil penalty of not less than $5,000 and not more than $10,000, plus 3 times the amount of damages which the Government sustains because of the act of that person.
31 U.S.C. § 3729(a).
. Under Illinois law, Cook County is a “home rule” unit. Secretary of State of Illinois,
Illinois Counties & Incorporated Municipalities
30 (1993);
see also
Ill. Const. Art. VII § 6;
Nevitt v. Langfelder,
. There is no reason to presume that a decision by the Justice Department not to assume control of the suit is a commentary on its merits. The Justice Department may have myriad reasons for permitting the private suit to go forward including limited prosecutorial resources and confidence in the relator’s attorney.
. This change shifted the FCA’s damages regime from a compensatory system to a punitive one,
see Stevens,
. The Supreme Court in
Stevens
found that this definition militated against a finding that states were within the definition of "person.”
See Stevens,
. The Supreme Court in
Stevens
found this statement to be erroneous.
See Stevens,
. The Supreme Court had held that the double damages recoverable before 1986 were remedial.
See United States v. Bornstein,
. Because our holding on this point creates an intercircuit conflict, this opinion has been circulated to the entire court. Circuit Rule 40(e). No judge in active service has requested a vote to hear this case en banc.
. Because Cook County is reinstated, we need not consider the County's argument that we have jurisdiction under the doctrine of
Dellwood Farms v. Cargill, Inc.,
. The regulations provide that:
Disclose or disclosure means a communication of patient identifying information, the affirmative verification of another person’s communication of patient identifying information, or the communication of any information from the record of a patient who has been identified.
42 C.F.R. § 2.11.