Court Sanctions DOJ and Defendants For Discovery Violations In False Claims Act Case
On July 10, 2020, a federal magistrate judge in the District of Minnesota issued a 39-page decision sanctioning DOJ (and the defendants) for various discovery violations in an FCA case based on alleged violations of the Anti-Kickback Statute.
As previously reported here, the Defendants Paul Ehlen (“Ehlen”), the majority owner of Precision Lens, and Cameron-Ehlen Group (conducting business as Precision Lens) (collectively, the “defendants”) are involved in the distribution of intraocular lenses and other products for ophthalmic surgeries. DOJ alleges that the defendants provided physicians with expensive trips, meals, and other in-kind remunerations at no cost or below fair market value. DOJ further alleges that, in exchange, these physicians purchased the Defendants’ products and used them during surgeries, which were subsequently billed to Medicare, in violation of the Anti-Kickback Statute and the False Claims Act. DOJ and the defendants filed motions seeking sanctions against the other in connection with inadequate preparation of 30(b)(6) designees and potential spoliation of information, documents, and electronically stored information. DOJ also filed a motion to compel the production of additional potentially relevant documents.
Supreme Court Unanimously Extends FCA Statute of Limitations to 10 Years for Non-Intervened Cases
On May 13, 2019, the United States Supreme Court unanimously held that the False Claims Act’s (“FCA”) alternative 10-year statute of limitations applies to non-intervened actions. As previously reported here, Cochise Consultancy, Inc. v. United States ex rel. Hunt, presented two main issues: whether relators are entitled to invoke the FCA’s 10-year statute of limitations set forth in 31 U.S.C. § 3731(b)(2), and whether relators are considered “official[s] of the United States” whose knowledge is relevant for determining when the 10-year limitations period applies. Writing for the unanimous Court, Justice Thomas ruled favorably for relators on both questions.
Supreme Court Appears Poised To Extend FCA Statute of Limitations to 10 Years In Non-Intervened Cases
On March 19, 2019, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Cochise Consultancy v. United States ex rel. Hunt, a case that appears likely to resolve a circuit split on an issue of critical importance: in non-intervened FCA cases – which comprise the vast majority of FCA cases – are relators entitled to invoke the FCA’s alternative 10 year statute of limitations set forth in 31 U.S.C. § 3731(b)(2)? That provision provides for a ten year statute of limitations if the action is brought no more than three years after “the official of the United States charged with responsibility to act” knows, or should know, the material facts of the violation. While an opinion is not expected until later this year, the tenor and content of the Justices’ questions suggest that the Court’s answer to that question is likely to be yes.
Department of Justice Closes Two Pharmacies In Connection With Opioid FCA Investigation
DOJ recently took the unusual step of obtaining a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) to shut down two healthcare providers in conjunction with the filing of a False Claims Act lawsuit based on the dispensing of medically unnecessary prescriptions.
On October 26, 2017, the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) declared the opioid epidemic a national public health emergency. As further detailed in the Complaint, according to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”), retail opioid prescriptions were dispensed in 2017 at a national rate of 58.7 prescriptions per 100 persons, and Tennessee’s dispense rate is nearly double the national rate, according to the United States. See Complaint, at ¶15. In Clay County, in particular, the United States contends that opioids were dispensed “at a rate sufficient for every man, woman, and child in the county to get their own prescription – twice.” See Complaint, at ¶16. (more…)
DOJ Nominee Barr Walks Back FCA Stand, But Not Entirely
Scott Stein (Chicago), Doreen Rachal (Boston), and Naomi Igra (San Francisco) authored an article for Bloomberg Law about Attorney General nominee William Barr’s testimony on the qui tam provisions of the False Claims Act. As discussed in the article, Barr questioned the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions earlier in his career but took a softer stance at his confirmation hearing. The article, a copy of which can be accessed here, explains how Barr acknowledged a Supreme Court decision upholding the qui tam provisions but left open the possibility that a Barr-led DOJ would continue moving to dismiss whistleblower actions that do not advance the federal government’s interests.
Trump Pick for AG to Be Scrutinized for Views on False Claims Act Enforcement
Scott Stein (Chicago), Doreen Rachal (Boston), and Naomi Igra (San Francisco) have authored an article for Bloomberg Law regarding Attorney General nominee William Barr’s views on the qui tam provisions of the False Claims Act. As discussed in the article, Barr has previously called the qui tam provisions “patently unconstitutional.” The article, a copy of which can be accessed here, discusses the basis for Barr’s views and how his confirmation may amplify DOJ’s recent efforts to move for dismissal of qui tam cases that do not serve the federal government’s interests.