This is an archived article that was published on in 2015, and information in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.

A federal whistleblower lawsuit unsealed this week accuses a St. George company of overcharging the U.S. government for the training video courses it sold to disabled veterans and submitting claims for products and services that were never provided.

In addition, the suit alleges LearnKey submitted claims to the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs for commissions the company pays to its sales force, even though such reimbursements are not allowed under the law.

The suit — filed in May 2014 in Salt Lake City's U.S. District Court and unsealed Monday — names as defendants LearnKey; its CEO, Jeff Coruccini; president David Clemons; and Brian Tremelling, veteran services manager.

Coruccini said he first learned of the allegations when the suit was unsealed this week and believes its claims are "incorrect."

"We look forward to digging further to understand what this is," he said Wednesday.

The suit seeks a payment to the federal government equal to three times the amount of damages and a monetary award for the whistleblower, Amber Hall, who worked at LearnKey as a veteran services representative from Feb. 24 through March 3, 2014.

Hall filed suit under the qui tam provisions of the federal False Claims Act, which is an action brought by citizens on behalf of themselves and the government. Under the law, the whistleblower generally can receive 15 percent to 30 percent of the amount recovered.

The suit alleges the fraudulent claims were made in connection with the sale of video courses to disabled veterans who are entitled to receive vocational rehabilitation benefits under the federally funded Chapter 31 program. Independent study courses are reimbursable under the program only if offered by a college or university and LearnKey is not a college or university, according to the lawsuit.

The suit also alleges LearnKey claimed reimbursement for third-party training courses and supplies sold to veterans at prices higher than its net cost.

In addition, the suit claims the company charged the Department of Veterans Affairs for courses and services that do not actually exist. Other alleged violations include falsifying dates on program enrollment documents to avoid refunding Veterans Affairs for uncompleted courses, and seeking reimbursement of fees paid to a third party that hired veterans. Those fees are not reimbursable under Chapter 31.

Twitter: PamelaMansonSLC