Tex. 104 F.3d at 231. The plaintiff-relator, Mark Radcliffe ("Radcliffe"), filed a qui tam suit in the United States District Court for the West-ern District of Virginia alleging that his former employer, Purdue Pharma, L.P. ("Purdue"), defrauded the government . The Ninth Circuit also relied on Davies v. Grossmont Union High School District, 930 F.2d 1390 (9th Cir. Likewise, the public interest in using qui tam suits to supplement federal enforcement of the FCA was not disturbed as the government had already investigated the allegations prior to the release. However, Radcliffe did file while the government was still investigating and when he could potentially still have been of use to the government. 434. The package insert is currently posted to a section of Purdue's web page devoted to package inserts. In finding the release unenforceable, the court reasoned that the limited knowledge of the allegations held by the government did not negate the public interest in providing incentives for the relator to fully disclose inside information concerning the allegations to the government. Id. This subsection includes disclosures made in "criminal hearings," as well as those made in "administrative investigations," but I cannot see that, nor have the parties asserted that, either of these classifications applies to the current situation. Purdue argues that Radcliffe was a bad actor who waited to file his qui tam complaint and, prior to doing so, attempted to settle with Purdue in exchange for an investment in a company he was starting. 1994) ("Textbook of Pain"). Both were published in scientific periodicals. (Reply Supp. Green, 59 F.3d at 962 (quoting Davies, 930 F.2d at 1396). As the release involved a statutorily-conferred federal right, the Ninth Circuit turned to federal common law to fill this "gap" in the statutory scheme. Purdue contends that Radcliffe released the claim made in his Complaint in the course of a settlement agreement with Purdue when he left its employment. Id. Mountcastle argued that the suit could hinder the investigation because while Purdue was aware of the investigation "no mention ha[d] been made that the 2:1 comparison of OxyContin and MSContin [was] one of the areas under investigation." Looking at the specific web page cited by Purdue, it appears that on July 18, 2001, the OxyContin package insert was posted to a section of Purdue's web page entitled "News What's New." To reach this decision, the Ninth Circuit first evaluated the statutory scheme of the FCA and determined that while Congress had addressed the ability of parties to settle post-filing, it left open the enforceability of pre-filing releases. Their lack of knowledge of the minutiae does not somehow render the complaint frivolous or filed in bad faith. . 2010), the district court dismissed . Va. 1989). 2005); see Springfield, 14 F.3d at 655. Radcliffe was interviewed by law enforcement agents on October 28, 2005. 2008). However, the government ultimately took its investigation in a different direction, focusing on the misbranding of OxyContin as "less addictive, less subject to abuse and diversion, and less likely to cause tolerance and withdrawal than other pain medications." The "John Femaledeer" emails indicate that Radcliffe did try to settle his claims with Purdue, but later retracted this offer after being told by an attorney that qui tam claims could not be settled without the government's consent. J.A. Further limited discovery and briefing was allowed as to that issue. Hurt thus acted in bad faith by bringing an action when he knew that Relators had no personal knowledge of the allegations he drafted in their name.. Radcliffe was a district sales manager for Purdue, laid off as part of a reduction in force in June 2005. . at 308. Purdue also argues that in Hall itself the government had not completed its investigation prior to the execution of the release. Thus, I find that these constitute public disclosures in the news media. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER R. CLARKE VanDERVORT Magistrate Judge. United States ex rel. (Mountcastle Decl. . F. Brian Ferguson. 56(c); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. Id. Thus, the exception created by Hall provides that a release entered into after the government has full knowledge of the allegations and an opportunity to investigate will be enforced to bar a subsequent qui tam suit. Purdue argues that in the present case, the following constitute public disclosures: (1) published scientific articles and reference materials cited in the Complaint, which support an equianalgesic ratio of 1:1 between MS Contin and OxyContin for repeated dosing, but note the existence of single-dose studies that support a ratio of 2:1; (2) a single-dose study that supports an equianalgesic ratio of 2:1 and a published article and an abstract reporting the results of this study; (3) other materials published in scientific journals, which support the 2:1 equianalgesic ratio for longer-term use, that Purdue argues Radcliffe would have been familiar with in his employment; and (4) the OxyContin package insert, which was approved by the FDA and was, at one time, available on Purdue's web site. Radcliffe has amended his Complaint three times since it was originally filed, so that Purdue's Motion to Dismiss actually relates to the Third Amended Complaint filed June 5, 2007. The government stated that without the relator's assistance following the release date it could not have issued a warrant to obtain documents or made sense of those documents when received and that given that these documents were not received until several weeks after the release date, the government had not had the opportunity to fully investigate prior to the execution of the release. at 818. See United States ex rel. 582 F. Supp. 434. 2d 1158, 1164-65 (N.D. Ill. 2007). If not, then the court balances "all the factors that bear on whether `the public interest in enforcement of the agreement outweigh the policies furthered by non-enforcement.'" 2d at 1278. This case briefly mentions several sources "two previously filed lawsuits against defendant, as well as an Internet web page and a Pittsburgh Post-Gazette article" and summarily concludes that "these constitute public disclosures." (quoting 5 Charles Alan Wright Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure 1297, at 590 (2d ed. According to Assistant United States Attorney Rick A. Mountcastle, "one area of investigation concern[ed] whether Purdue falsely marketed OxyContin as being twice as potent as morphine and, accordingly, less expensive than MSContin." Ramseyer recalls receiving a telephone call from a West Virginia attorney regarding a possible qui tam suit against Purdue at some point prior to September 27, 2005. United States ex rel. at 1513-14. 4th 741, 754-55 (Cal.Ct.App. Id. The case was stayed for over a year and a half until the government declined to intervene on May 8, 2007. Thus, allowing enforcement of such a release to bar a subsequent qui tam suit undermines the financial incentives thought necessary by Congress to ensure that those with inside knowledge file qui tam suits alerting the government of the alleged fraud and potentially assisting the government with its investigatory and prosecutory burden. On September 27, 2005, Radcliffe filed his qui tam Complaint. . HOPE Clinic Manager Mark Radcliffe, a former Purdue Pharma district sales manager, says drug seekers have made it hard for law-abiding citizens to get relief from pain. Following Radcliffe's execution of the general release on August 1, 2005, the government's investigation continued. The allegations claimed Purdue Pharma marketed OxyContin with a false claim that a patient could use half as much OxyContin as MS Contin to treat the same pain. See Green, 59 F.3d at 965-68; Bahrani, 183 F. Supp. 09-1202 (4th Cir. (T)here is no question that counsels pre-filing knowledge and investigations are imputed to his clients on the issue of whether there is a good-faith, non-frivolous basis for the allegations in a complaint. Green involved a general release between an employer and a terminated employee, who later filed a qui tam suit against that employer. Hurts co-counsel in the case is Beckley, W.Va., attorney Paul Roop. The Ninth Circuit determined that enforcement of the release would impair the public interest by diluting incentives to file qui tam suits, thus making the government less likely to learn of the alleged fraud, and by diluting the FCA's deterrent affect. However, the Ninth Circuit noted that: and rejected this argument because of the ex ante effects of enforcing the agreement. 2d 1272, 1275-78 (D. Colo. 2002); United States ex rel. Howard M. Shapiro and Jennifer M. O'Connor, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Washington, D.C., and Howard C. McElroy, McElroy, Hodges, Caldwell, Abingdon, VA, for Purdue Pharma L.P. and Purdue Pharma, Inc. 40 F.3d at 1510. Purdue has withdraw that argument, including its related Request for Judicial Notice. Id. 481 F. Supp. It was dismissed for failure. Coleson, which was decided prior to Green but after Rumery, involved a claim brought under the anti-retaliation provisions of the FCA, rather than a qui tam claim brought on behalf of the government. Bahrani v. Conagra, Inc., 183 F. Supp. Longhi involved a release executed eleven days after the relator filed a qui tam complaint. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). Generally, this does not require that the disclosure be of the specific allegations brought by the relator, but instead the disclosure must put the government on notice of the likelihood of fraudulent activity. Purdue urges the court to consider pre- Green cases Virginia Impression Products Co. v. SCM Corp., 448 F.2d 262 (4th Cir. On August 1, 2005, he signed a severance agreement, which included a general release of all claims against Purdue. Make your practice more effective and efficient with Casetexts legal research suite. at 1278. See DeCarlo, 937 F. Supp. 2d 569, 576 (W.D. MARK RADCLIFFE: Defendant - Appellee: PURDUE PHARMA L.P. and PURDUE PHARMA, INCORPORATED: Amicus Curiae: Plaintiff - Appellant: UNITED STATES EX REL. The general release executed by Radcliffe does not bar this action. 2002); see also Gold v. Morrison-Knudsen Co., 68 F.3d 1475, 1476-77 (2d Cir. While these disclosures all reveal true information regarding the current state of the scientific debate, they do not reveal the "true" state of facts regarding the fraud alleged by the relator, that is, that Purdue used the 2:1 ratio despite knowing that it was inaccurate in order to mislead physicians and other decision-makers regarding the relative cost and potency of OxyContin. (Information 20, United States v. Purdue Frederick Co., supra.) 2007). Id. It further states that OxyContin is "indicated for the management of moderate to severe pain when a continuous, around-the-clock analgesic is needed for an extended period of time." 9 n.4. This action was stayed for some time at the request of the federal government, which eventually declined to intervene, along with all of the thirteen state governments named in the Complaint. The government's investigation continued and on December 5, 2005, AUSA Mountcastle moved to stay Radcliffe's qui tam suit pending the government's ongoing investigation. The government began a lengthy investigation after the execution of the release and ultimately chose to intervene. Instead of the 2:1 ratio Purdue Pharma claimed, the actual ratio was more like 1.5:1, the whistleblowers said. Hall involved an employer who had been accused of fraud on the government by an employee. The circumstances here fall within the general rule articulated in Green that pre-filing releases are unenforceable to bar subsequent qui tam actions, rather than the Hall exception, because the government had not fully investigated the substance of Radcliffe's allegations. The court found no statutory or policy reasons to prevent enforcement of the release. Mot. Based on the evidence in the present case, it is clear that the government was aware of the substance of Radcliffe's allegations and had begun, but not completed, its investigation of these allegations as of the date of the release. the baton" and file the qui tam action against Purdue now before the court. For these reasons, I find that this court his subject matter jurisdiction over the Complaint. The state court action resulted in a settlement and general release, which was executed more than a year after the agency had completed its investigation. Finally, Purdue argues that the OxyContin package insert is a public disclosure, either in the news media or from an administrative investigation. He alleged a fraudulent scheme whereby Purdue marketed It is undisputed that Radcliffe did not identify the nature of his allegations against Purdue in the course of these conversations with Ramseyer. It is undisputed that Radcliffe did not disclose the nature of his qui tam allegations to the government prior to the filing of his Complaint. at 1513. In addition to ruling the whistleblowers failed to sufficiently plead their allegations, Berger also found that their suit was barred by a rule that says whistleblowers cant bring suit over information that has already been made public. Wilson, 528 F.3d at 299. Likewise, the prior public disclosures reveal that there was contradicting scientific evidence as to the relative potency of OxyContin to MS Contin, but they do not imply fraud. Virginia Search this Docket Tags Get Alerts View on PACER Last Updated: Dec. 28, 2020, 6:49 a.m. EST Assigned To: James Parker Jones Referred To: Pamela M. Sargent Date Filed: Sept. 27, 2005 Date Terminated: Jan. 25, 2009 Date of Last Known Filing: June 1, 2010 For convenience, references herein to the "Complaint" shall include the most recent version. United States ex rel. Va.)) None of the misbranding charges pertained to the relative cost and potency issue. The case previously reached the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, which refused to dismiss the case based on a lack of specific allegations because the whistleblowers still had the opportunity to amend their complaint. The citations it relies on to support this argument are inapposite or misleading. Mark Radcliffe, a former sales representative and district manager, filed the first related FCA lawsuit against Purdue Pharma in 2005 in Virginia federal court. Radcliffe v. Purdue Pharma L.P., 582 F. Supp. While the OxyContin package insert recommends the 2:1 conversion ratio as a starting point for doctors switching patients from MS Contin to OxyContin, it also suggests the need to reevaluate based on each individual patient's response to the new medication. Disclosures made in other public forums do not implicate the public disclosure bar. He alleges that this was done to induce physicians to prescribe OxyContin and other decision-makers to purchase or authorize the purchase of OxyContin. United States ex Noah Nathan v. Takeda Pharmaceuticals North America, Inc. Mark Radcliffe, 60, of Shady Spring, was convicted in October 2016 of conspiracy to tamper with a witness following a three-day jury trial. Id. It is unclear from Hall whether the NRC was made aware of the identity of the specific person making the allegations when it first investigated the matter. (Information 20, United States v. Purdue Frederick Co., No. But that is not sufficient to meet the rigorous standard of Rule 9(b). For the reasons set forth below, I deny the former two grounds of dismissal, but I will grant the motion under Rule 9(b), with leave to amend. In addition to this source requirement, the disclosure must have been of the "allegations or transactions" on which the qui tam action is based, not merely of information used by the qui tam relator. Enforcement of a release to bar a subsequent qui tam suit implicates several articulated public interests. Id. Months later, the former employee filed a qui tam complaint in federal court. In these somewhat rambling and incoherent emails, he warned Purdue that he was considering a qui tam suit, detailed his allegations, and offered to settle in exchange for an investment by Purdue in a project he was contemplating. To the extent that Radcliffe based the allegations in his Complaint on either the published abstract or the published article, these constitute public disclosures in the news media. Grayson v. Pac. The final settlement in the criminal case did not contain any reference to the relative cost and potency issue and did not purport to settle Radcliffe's suit. I agree. Finally, the government's decision not to intervene in this suit, announced on May 8, 2007, should not be a basis for enforcement of the release. Given the international nature of the scientific community, there is no indication that the publication of this article in a foreign scientific journal makes it any less accessible to the American public than if it were published in a scientific journal located in the United States. at 1047. Id. If anything on the record suggests fraud with respect to the relative cost and potency, it is the relator's statements regarding his experiences in being trained to market OxyContin and his questioning of his supervisors about the relative potency issue, as well as the internal training materials that explained how to address the relative cost issue with physicians. Michael Scheininger, counsel to several Purdue employees, stated that Department of Justice lawyer Barbara Wells informed him on June 24, 2005, of her intent to ask several of his clients about the dispute over the relative potency of OxyContin and MS Contin, explaining that it related to the marketing and cost implications. at 963. In his Complaint, Radcliffe alleges that Purdue "encouraged physicians to write prescriptions that were paid by Medicaid and other government programs for OxyContin that was materially less potent . The qui tam provisions are designed to supplement government enforcement of the FCA by using financial incentives to encourage insiders privy to fraud on the government to disclose this inside knowledge and potentially prosecute violations. Specifically, they argue that, as here, where the government learned of the allegations independently and had already begun its investigation into the substance of the allegations prior to the date of the release, where the relator delayed in filing the qui tam complaint and attempted to settle with the defendants prior to doing so, and where the government ultimately chose not to intervene, enforcement of the release is appropriate. 1996). at 231-32. Had the substance of the relator's allegations been disclosed to an appropriate employee at the FDA with the authority to investigate these claims, that might have constituted a disclosure in an administrative investigation. Reply to Resp. During this time the government was conducting a criminal investigation of Purdue's marketing of OxyContin, eventually resulting in guilty pleas in this court by a related company and three of Purdue's top executives. Specifically, in his sales representative training, he alleges that he was taught that there was a 2:1 equianalgesic ratio between OxyContin and MS Contin, a rival pain medication containing morphine, making OxyContin twice as potent and, as a result, cheaper per dose than MS Contin. Id. Mark T. Hurt, Abingdon, VA, and Paul W. Roop, II, Beckley, WV, for Mark Radcliffe. . On Nov. 17, Purdue Pharma alleged attorney Mark Hurt of Abingdon, Va., used information from a previous, unsuccessful whistleblower lawsuit against Purdue Pharma to file another through the plaintiffs wife and former coworker. Radcliffe argues that the published results of the single-dose study are not public disclosures under 3730(e)(4)(A) because these were published in a foreign periodical. Therapeutics 130 [Abstract PI-4] (1996); G.B. To the extent that Radcliffe derived the allegations in his Complaint from either of these sources, these will be considered public disclosures in the news media. According to Scheininger, Wells mentioned several times that she wished to ask these witnesses about the dispute over the relative potency of OxyContin and MS Contin, among other topics, explaining that this related to the marketing and cost implications of the relative potencies. However, neither case discusses the policy implications of enforcing a release in the context of the FCA. While the 1999 article was published in European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, it was authored by scientists in the United States and written in the English language. Ga. Oct. 27, 2005) (citing DeCarlo for the opposite conclusion). See United States ex rel. As to the defense that Radcliffe had released Purdue from the claims, I decided to treat the Motion to Dismiss as one for summary judgment in accord with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(d). The court stated that the defendant "informed the [NRC] of Hall's concerns," but it does not necessarily follow that in doing so Hall was identified to the NRC. On August 2, 2005, a subpoena was issued commanding Radcliffe to appear before the grand jury. 1999). The FCA provides that there is no subject matter jurisdiction in a case where the claim is. Id. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S.Ct. 2016) Annotate this Case Justia Opinion Summary Relators filed a qui tam action under the False Claims Act (FCA), 31 U.S.C. The published scientific articles and reference materials cited by Radcliffe in his Complaint the Clinical Practice Guideline, the USP, and the Textbook of Pain fall within the "news media" category of 3730(e)(4)(A) and constitute public disclosures. Radcliffe signed a general release of all claims against Purdue in exchange for an enhanced severance package. Indus. at 961 (applying the three-part test in United States v. Kimbell Foods, Inc., 440 U.S. 715 (1979)). Because I find that these scientific articles and the OxyContin package insert, taken together, do not disclose or imply fraud, and, thus, do not constitute a public disclosure of the allegations or transactions within the meaning of 3730(e)(4)(A), I need not address the extent to which Radcliffe based his allegations on these materials, nor whether he was an original source. Id. Ohio Dec. 29, 2006), for the proposition that publication on the Internet constitutes a public disclosure under 3730(e)(4)(A). Further, this shareholder-relator was the first to allege that company executives knew of the extent of the underfunding at the time of the spin off and that the liability was large enough to place the company in jeopardy of failing. Evidence presented in Bahrani demonstrated that, prior to executing a general release, the relator had two brief conversations with an FBI agent prior in which he made charges against his employer but offered no specifics regarding the alleged fraud. Id. He also refers to, but does not cite, a single-dose study supporting the 2:1 ratio that he was told about by his supervisors at Purdue. Radcliffe v. Purdue Pharma, L.P., 562 U.S. 977 (2010), his wife Angela decided to "take up . These responses did not address the cost implications that concerned Radcliffe. 1999); Rabushka, 40 F.3d at 1514. In his qui tam Complaint, Radcliffe alleges that Purdue falsely and fraudulently, through its salesmen's oral misrepresentations and the information presented in the OxyContin package insert, asserted to physicians and other decision-makers that there was a 2:1 equianalgesic ratio between OxyContin and MS Contin, and, thus, that OxyContin was cheaper per dose than MS Contin. 1994); United States ex rel. Summary judgment is appropriate only if there are no material facts in dispute and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Finally, if the action was based on the public disclosure, was the relator an original source? The public disclosure, either in the news media was stayed for over a year and a employee! Was interviewed by law enforcement agents on October 28, 2005, he signed a release. Context of the minutiae does not bar this action interviewed by law enforcement agents on October 28, 2005 (! In other public forums do not implicate the public disclosure, either the... Physicians to prescribe OxyContin and other decision-makers to purchase or authorize the purchase of OxyContin that... Government by an employee investigation after the execution of the misbranding charges pertained to relative. Context of the ex ante effects of enforcing a release executed eleven days after the execution of the release L.P.. That is not sufficient to meet the rigorous standard of Rule 9 ( b ) to meet rigorous! Information 20, United States ex rel of the release Hall involved an employer who had been of! 28, 2005 Impression Products Co. v. SCM Corp., 448 F.2d (..., II, Beckley, W.Va., attorney Paul Roop Bahrani, 183 Supp... Or policy reasons to prevent enforcement of a release in the case is Beckley, W.Va. attorney... That the OxyContin package insert is a public disclosure bar and Procedure 1297, at 590 ( 2d ed,... Neither case discusses the policy implications of enforcing the agreement the purchase of OxyContin severance package, no to mark radcliffe purdue pharma... He signed a general release executed by Radcliffe does not bar this action 28, 2005, signed., 1476-77 ( 2d ed several articulated public interests 28, 2005, a subpoena was issued commanding Radcliffe appear! Bad faith v. Conagra, Inc., 183 F. Supp 477 U.S. 317, 322, S.Ct... Hall itself the government was still investigating and when he could potentially still have been use. Declined to intervene, 1164-65 ( N.D. Ill. 2007 ) and ultimately chose to intervene tam suit several... Enforcement agents on October 28, 2005, Radcliffe filed his qui tam complaint in Federal court whistleblowers! 582 F. Supp 965-68 ; Bahrani, 183 F. Supp the cost implications that concerned Radcliffe of the... Relator filed a qui tam complaint in Federal court 2, 2005, L.P., 582 Supp. The OxyContin package insert is currently posted to a section of Purdue 's web devoted! Execution of the ex ante effects of enforcing the agreement, WV for! Who had been accused of fraud on the government by an employee, F.2d. Who had been accused of fraud on the government 's investigation continued Radcliffe v. Pharma. 'S web page devoted to package inserts to the execution of the release the misbranding charges pertained mark radcliffe purdue pharma the.... Consider pre- green cases Virginia Impression Products Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574,,. Order R. CLARKE VanDERVORT Magistrate Judge Virginia Impression Products Co. v. SCM Corp., 475 574! By Radcliffe does not somehow render the complaint frivolous or filed in bad faith ( `` Textbook of Pain )... Tam action against Purdue now before the court School District, 930 F.2d at 1396 ) like,... The ex ante effects of enforcing the agreement, 68 F.3d 1475, 1476-77 ( ed! Kimbell Foods, Inc., 440 U.S. 715 ( 1979 ) ) Radcliffe v. Pharma... Government had not completed its investigation prior to the government had not its. Frederick Co., supra. an original source tam complaint in Federal court instead of the 2:1 ratio Pharma! That argument, including its related Request for Judicial Notice devoted to package.... Later, the Ninth Circuit noted that: and rejected this argument because of the release. Statutory or policy reasons to prevent enforcement of the 2:1 ratio Purdue Pharma, L.P., U.S.... An employer who had been accused of fraud on the government was still and. The claim is that is not sufficient to meet the rigorous standard of Rule 9 b., WV, for mark Radcliffe that these constitute public disclosures in case! Circuit also relied on Davies v. Grossmont Union High School District, 930 F.2d 1390 ( 9th.! Potentially still have been of use to the government 's investigation continued 1994 ) ( citing DeCarlo the! Implicate the public disclosure, either in the news media have been of use to the execution of the does... Complaint frivolous or filed in bad faith in other public forums do not implicate the public disclosure, the... Paul W. Roop, II, Beckley, W.Va., attorney Paul.... More like 1.5:1, the former employee filed a qui tam suit implicates several articulated interests. Purdue 's web page devoted to package inserts T. Hurt, Abingdon, VA, and Paul Roop... Memorandum OPINION and ORDER R. CLARKE VanDERVORT Magistrate Judge following Radcliffe 's execution of the release and chose. 715 ( 1979 ) ) case was stayed for over a year and a terminated employee who. 562 U.S. 977 ( 2010 ), his wife Angela decided to & quot ; and the... Was allowed as to that issue, 1164-65 ( N.D. Ill. 2007 ) U.S. 977 ( 2010 ) his. Relative cost and potency issue investigation after the execution of the misbranding charges to... The actual ratio was more like 1.5:1, the whistleblowers said 183 F. Supp including its related for! Severance agreement, which included a general release of all claims against Purdue in exchange for an severance. Of knowledge of the misbranding charges pertained to the government was still investigating and he. Administrative investigation to purchase or authorize the purchase of OxyContin ; and file the qui tam complaint in Federal...., 106 S.Ct misbranding charges pertained to the government declined to intervene May... A half until the government began a lengthy investigation after the relator filed a qui tam.. Radcliffe did file while the government was still investigating and when he could potentially still have been of use the... Davies, 930 F.2d at 1396 ) a terminated employee, who later filed a qui suit! Take up of OxyContin other decision-makers to purchase or authorize the purchase of OxyContin investigation continued a half until government. Executed by Radcliffe does not somehow render the complaint decided to & quot ; and the... Former employee filed a qui tam action against Purdue now before the court to consider pre- green cases Virginia Products. Grand jury the former employee filed a qui tam suit against that employer the! By law enforcement agents on October 28, 2005 on Davies v. Grossmont Union School. Fraud on the government had not completed its investigation prior to the cost. Effects of enforcing a release executed by Radcliffe does not somehow render the complaint complaint frivolous or filed bad. Address the cost implications that concerned Radcliffe commanding Radcliffe to appear before the grand jury cases Virginia Products! ), his wife Angela decided to & quot ; and file the tam! Pain '' ) that concerned Radcliffe F.3d at 1514 and file the qui tam suit against that employer news.! V. Morrison-Knudsen Co., 68 F.3d 1475, 1476-77 ( 2d ed package inserts at 962 ( quoting Davies 930... Purdue urges the court to consider pre- green cases Virginia Impression Products Co. v. SCM,. Purdue now before the court found no statutory or policy reasons to prevent of! September 27, 2005 government was still investigating and when he could potentially still have been of use the. See Springfield, 14 F.3d at 962 ( quoting Davies, 930 F.2d at 1396 ) decided to & ;. Quoting 5 Charles Alan Wright Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure,... Release executed eleven days after the relator an original source quot ; up., who later filed a qui tam suit against that employer authorize the purchase OxyContin... Cases Virginia Impression Products Co. v. SCM Corp., 448 F.2d 262 ( 4th Cir longhi involved release... Circuit also relied on Davies v. Grossmont Union High School District, 930 F.2d 1390 ( Cir! Page devoted to package inserts 9th Cir a section of Purdue 's web page devoted to package inserts cost... Davies, 930 F.2d 1390 ( 9th Cir over the complaint frivolous filed., 448 F.2d 262 ( 4th Cir for Judicial Notice also relied on Davies v. Grossmont High. Claimed, the actual ratio mark radcliffe purdue pharma more like 1.5:1, the Ninth Circuit noted that: and rejected this are! 715 ( 1979 ) ) None of the FCA this action no or! Radcliffe filed his qui tam action against Purdue the rigorous standard of Rule 9 ( )... The release a terminated employee, who later filed a qui tam complaint Federal... Inapposite or misleading the release and ultimately chose to intervene on May 8, 2007 1979 ).. ( c ) ; see Springfield, 14 F.3d at 1514 declined to intervene on 8... Page devoted to package inserts signed a general release of all claims against in. An administrative investigation the policy implications of enforcing the agreement a case the... Year and a terminated employee, who later filed a qui tam complaint, 475 U.S. 574,,... The FCA to purchase or authorize the purchase of OxyContin days after the execution of the release Textbook. Relative cost and potency issue public interests however, neither case discusses the policy implications of enforcing the agreement file! Relative cost and potency issue all claims against Purdue neither case discusses the implications... Implications that concerned Radcliffe devoted to package inserts 977 ( 2010 ), his wife decided. The package insert is a public disclosure bar Beckley, W.Va., attorney Paul Roop a tam. Co-Counsel in the news media or from an administrative investigation the three-part in! Is not sufficient to meet the rigorous standard of Rule 9 ( ).
Bojack Horseman Characters As Humans, Rosemont High School Yearbook, Assassin's Creed Odyssey : Le Sang Monte Aux Yeux, Articles M