Jul 292022

Court Rejects “Tenuous” Connection Between FDCA Regulatory Violations and Claims for Payment

Jaime L.M. Jones, Brenna E. Jenny and Krystalyn K. Weaver
,

Recently, a district court in the Southern District of Florida dismissed with prejudice a qui tam complaint premised on the alleged sale of products adulterated and misbranded under the Food Drug and Cosmetic Act (“FDCA”). United States ex rel. Crocano v. Trividia Health Inc., No. 22-CV-60160-RAR (S.D. Fla. July 18, 2022).  In so doing, the court declined to embrace the arguments asserted in a Statement of Interest filed by DOJ and reiterated that “the False Claims Act is not the proper avenue for holding [companies] accountable” for violations of the FDCA, because “the FDA’s use of its regulatory enforcement  powers may be exercised fully to ensure further compliance.”

As discussed here, DOJ declined to intervene, but filed a Statement of Interest last month arguing that “deficiencies in [an] affected product resulting from FDCA violations may, in certain circumstances, be material to the government’s decision whether to pay for the affected product, and thus relevant in an FCA case.”  In particular, DOJ encouraged the court to conclude that where fraudulent statements or omissions would have caused FDA to recall a product, claims for that product are “false” under the FCA.  This so-called “fraud-on-the-FDA” theory has been received with mixed success in courts, as discussed here and here.

In the order granting the defendant’s motion to dismiss, the court agreed that “a regulatory violation can rise to the level of creating liability” under the FCA.  However, the court explained that regulatory violations under the FDCA cannot create FCA liability where the “connection to claims for payment by the government is tenuous at best.”  And here, the relator’s argument “falls apart” because even if the defendant’s products were misbranded, the court explained that the relator could not “clos[e] the circuit between misbranding and claims for reimbursement from the government.”  To support this conclusion, the court relied heavily on the Fourth Circuit’s reasoning in Rostholder (discussed here and here).  The district court concluded that as in Rostholder, the relator in this case failed adequately to plead falsity because she could not identify a connection between adverse event reporting rules and eligibility for reimbursement; there was no express false certification submitted by the defendant because “compliance with FDA regulations is not required for payment by Medicare and Medicaid”; and the relator did not identify “any false statement or other fraudulent misrepresentation that Defendant made to the government.”

The district court also refused to allow the relator to proceed under a “worthless services” theory of FCA liability.   In its Statement of Interest, DOJ encouraged the court to conclude that “manufacturing deficiencies violating the FDCA or FDA regulations could materially affect the safety, efficacy, or performance of a device such that the product is essentially ‘worthless’ and not eligible for payment by the government.”  But the district court pointed out that neither the Eleventh Circuit, nor any other Court of Appeals, had expanded the “worthless services” theory “into the realm of ‘worthless products,’” and the court declined to do so here.

As highlighted by arguments made in this case under the public disclosure bar, the defendant’s alleged misconduct was publicly disclosed and well known to FDA.  FDA’s knowledge seemingly fueled the district court’s significant reservations over allowing relators and DOJ to usurp FDA’s enforcement powers through the FCA.  This decision represents an important development in the evolving landscape around the intersection between FDCA violations and the False Claims Act.

A copy of the court’s opinion is available here.

This post is as of the posting date stated above. Sidley Austin LLP assumes no duty to update this post or post about any subsequent developments having a bearing on this post.

Jaime L.M. Jones

Chicago

jaimejones@sidley.com

Brenna E. Jenny

Washington, D.C.

bjenny@sidley.com

Krystalyn K. Weaver

You might also like
Second Circuit Leaves Open Novel Legal Theory that Flawed AI is a “Worthless Service”

In a decision issued last week, the Second Circuit was faced with the novel legal theory that use of flawed artificial intelligence systems can constitute a “worthless service” for purposes of FCA liability.  See Doe v. eviCore Healthcare MSI, LLC, No. 22-530-CV, 2023 WL 2249577 (2d Cir. Feb. 28, 2023).  The Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal for failure to satisfy the heightened Rule 9(b) pleading standard but did not reach the merits, leaving open the question of whether such a theory is viable under the FCA.

National Nursing Home Initiative Picks Up Steam Under the FCA

In March 2020, DOJ implemented the National Nursing Home Initiative (“the Initiative”) to coordinate and enhance civil and criminal efforts to pursue nursing homes that allegedly provide substandard care to their residents. DOJ noted in its announcement of the Initiative that it had already begun investigating approximately 30 nursing facilities in nine states. However, since that announcement, DOJ’s FCA activity as part of this project has been limited. But earlier this week, DOJ announced the filing of one of its first FCA complaints resulting from an investigation launched as part of the Initiative. This case also comes in the wake of the White House’s announcement earlier this year of new initiatives by CMS to enhance the quality of care at nursing homes. In light of both DOJ and White House priorities in this space, this complaint could reflect DOJ’s intention to step up its use of the FCA to police quality of care at nursing homes.

DOJ Defends Viability of Fraud-on-the-FDA Theory in Statement of Interest

Over the past decade, relators have attempted to expand the long-established “fraudulent inducement” theory of liability into a novel “fraud-on-the-FDA” theory. The fraudulent inducement theory posits that when a defendant’s fraudulent conduct induces a government entity to enter into a contract with the defendant, the claims for payment submitted under that contract are false. However, the fraud-on-the-FDA theory stretches this causal chain by contending that fraudulent conduct directed at FDA can render false the claims for payment submitted to an entirely different government entity, such as CMS.  Courts have been divided as to the viability of this theory (as we have discussed here and here).