For at least forty years we’ve been hearing that soccer is going to supplant baseball, basketball, or football among America’s top three sports.  It hasn’t happened.  Maybe we heirs of Washington, Jefferson, Ruth, Rice, and Chamberlain have limited enthusiasm for one-nil scores and players diving and mimicking death throes in a cheap effort to extract a penalty kick.


Meanwhile, we have seen boxing subside in the country’s consciousness, bullied out of the way by mixed martial arts (MMA). It’s hard to believe one of those M’s does not stand for mayhem.  Forget about the Marquis of Queensbury’s niceties.  In MMA, the contestants are free to kick, choke, and elbow each other.  Hit a man when he’s down?  That’s not forbidden in MMA. Nope, that’s when the action is just getting started.  Pretty much anything goes in MMA.  
But you cannot use anabolic steroids.  If you test positive, you get suspended.  Rules are rules.  

The plaintiff in In re Lyman Good Dietary Supplements Litigation, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 131668 (SDNY Aug. 6, 2018), was an MMA fighter who was suspended because he tested positive for a banned substance.  The court employs the short-hand reference “andro” for the banned substance, and so shall we.  The plaintiff claimed that he had unknowingly ingested andro that was present in two dietary supplements that had been labeled to be free of any banned substances. The plaintiff alleged that the manufacturers and sellers of the dietary supplements promised that the products were “safe,” “without the use of banned substances,” “banned substance free,” and in compliance with “strict quality assurance procedures.”  The presence of andro broke such promises, and the plaintiff’s career had suffered a serious bruise. The plaintiff sued the manufacturers, high ranking executives at the manufacturers, and the retailer. The causes of action were interesting, including some you’d expect (breach of warranties, fraud, deceptive practices, false advertising, negligence, and strict liability) and some you wouldn’t (intentional infliction of emotional distress, assault and battery).  The defendants moved to dismiss and ended up winning more than they lost.

The court dismissed the claims for fraud, assault and battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.  Fraud claims are subject to heightened pleading requirements, which the complaint didn’t come within a puncher’s chance of satisfying. All we get are general allegations of fraudulent intent, along with generalized motive to earn profits.  That isn’t nearly enough.  The court applied a rear naked choke to the fraud claim and counted it out.  The assault and battery claim was a wild swing and miss.  The plaintiff’s theory was that putting a substance in someone’s body without consent is battery, but there was no case support for that, plus the plaintiff never alleged the requisite intention to inflict injury.  Here comes a reverse guillotine, and watch the court slice off the assault and battery claims.  Lack of intent is also what doomed the claim for intentional (or reckless) infliction of emotional distress.  The court also could identify no alleged outrageous conduct that went “beyond all possible bounds of decency.”  (To be sure, when one is dealing with MMA, it might seem difficult to meet that standard.) 

The court dismissed the claims against the executives, both on the merits and for want of personal jurisdiction.  Suing executives is fairly rare, and there are reasons for that.  Piercing the corporate veil requires a showing that the executives exercised compete domination and disregarded corporate formalities, including use of corporate funds for personal purposes.  At most, the complaint alleged that the individual defendants were high-level officers with wide-ranging authority, but an officer or director is not personally liable for the torts of a corporation merely by reason of occupying an important office.  The complaint utterly failed to allege that the executives used corporate domination to perpetrate a fraud.  In any event, there was no personal jurisdiction over the individuals.  They all had general authority over their corporations, but were not the primary drivers of the particular transactions in New York that gave rise to the litigation.  Hello sleeper hold, and good-bye claims against the individual defendants.  

The retailer prevailed on most of its motions to dismiss.  The claims for implied warranty of fitness for particular purpose, express warranty, and false advertising were carried out of the ring, but the claim of implied warranty of merchantability emerged unscathed.   The only express warranty by the retailer listed in the complaint was a statement in its 10-K annual report that the company used quality control procedures and that it refused to sell products that did not comply with law or were unsafe.  Those representations are pretty general, and the plaintiff did not even claim to have read them or relied upon them prior to purchase.  Nor did the annual report constitute a form of advertisement.  The court granted the plaintiff leave to amend the claim for implied warranty of fitness for particular purpose because, even though the complaint was bereft of any assertions that the plaintiff and the store had any conversations about how the plaintiff would use the supplements to prepare for MMA combat, the plaintiff wanted to add six paragraphs alleging precisely such conversations.  If such conversations did take place, it would not be “outside the realm of reasonable knowledge” that professional competitions require drug testing.   Thus, the particular purpose warranty claim might live to fight again.

The opinion in Lyman Good is solid and clear.  It goes through the different causes of action and defendants one-by one, jab by jab.  It reminds us that MMA is not the only place where rules are rules.

A myth that has regrettably gained some traction lately is that the FDA’s clearance of a medical device under the 510(k) substantial equivalence process is unrelated to safety and efficacy. One notably unfair manifestation of this myth is the entry of orders in limine in a number of recent medical device cases excluding evidence of the devices’ 510(k) regulatory pathway.  Most or all of these orders rely on the Supreme Court’s 1996 opinion in Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr, where the Court held that federal law did not preempt certain medical device warnings claims involving 510(k) devices.  In so holding, the Court distinguished the pre-1990 510(k) clearance process from the more involved and “rigorous” premarket approval (“PMA”) process and observed that the old 510(k) process was “focused on equivalence, not safety.”  518 U.S. 470, 493 (1996).

The Supreme Court did not hold that 510(k) clearance has no bearing on safety and efficacy, but the language quoted above provides a foothold for those inclined to marginalize the FDA’s role.  Indeed, we believe the Supreme Court’s view of the 510(k) process was already outdated in 1996.  As we have explained multiple times (including here), the 510(k) clearance process is keyed directly to safety and efficacy, and the Supreme Court has been retreating from Medtronic v. Lohr almost since the day the opinion was filed.

A district judge in Los Angeles recently provided what we think is the correct perspective. The case is Otero v. Zeltiq Aesthetics, Inc., No. CV 17-3994, 2018 WL 3012942 (C.D. Cal. June 11, 2018), and it is not a preemption case, or even a product liability case.  Instead, patients sued the manufacturer of a non-invasive fat-reducing system under California’s permissive consumer fraud statutes, claiming that the company made partial statements that were misleading and failed to disclose material information about the product. Id. at **1-2.

What were the misleading partial statements and omitted facts? The plaintiffs alleged that the manufacturer stated (truthfully) that the product was “FDA-cleared” and “FDA-cleared as safe and effective.” Id. at *1.  And the manufacturer failed to explain the difference between “FDA clearance” on the one hand and “FDA approval” on the other.  That’s the omission.

We have unending sympathy for individuals who fight weight gain and for whom the condescending admonition to exercise more and eat less is not helpful. Be that as it may, these claims have no arguable merit, and the district court correctly dismissed them.  With regard to the alleged “partial” representation that the device was “FDA cleared,” the district court ruled that “Plaintiffs fail to explain how that true representation—on its own—could cause reasonable consumers to erroneously believe that the system received FDA approval.” Id. at *2.  The court continued:

Plaintiffs simply point out that under California law, true statements may mislead reasonable consumers if other relevant information is omitted. Although that is an accurate legal proposition, it does not establish that “FDA-Cleared” gives rise to viable [California statutory] claims, especially because the “mere possibility” that some consumers acting unreasonably will conflate FDA-clearance and FDA-approval is insufficient.

Id. So can a true statement ever support a claim?  Under some circumstances not presented here, it appears that one could, although that would be truly exceptional case.  Can a true statement support a claim where it is merely possible that a consumer will unreasonably misconstrue it?  This court ruled that it cannot.

There is more. The plaintiffs also argued that adding the words “safe and effective” to “FDA-cleared” was misleading because that claim can only be made in connection with FDA approval, citing Medtronic v. Lohr.  (See, we were going to get back to Medtronic v. Lohr eventually, and here we are).  In the part of the order that we like the most, the district court convincingly debunked the myth that “safe and effective” is unique to the PMA process:

It appears that this argument relies on Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr, 518 U.S. 470 (1996), which allegedly establishes that “‘[t]he § 510(k) notification process is by no means comparable to the PMA process’ and in no way warrants that the device is safe and effective.”  [quoting Plaintiffs’ brief.]  Although Medtronic observed that obtaining Section 510(k) clearance is not as onerous as the “rigorous” PMA process, the Supreme Court did not find that the former has no bearing on a device’s safety and effectiveness. In fact, Medtronic acknowledged that “the FDA may well examine § 510(k) applications . . . with a concern for the safety and effectiveness of the device . . .”  The Supreme Court later clarified “the FDA simultaneously maintains the exhaustive MPA and the more limited § 510(k) process in order to ensure . . . that the medical devices are reasonably safe and effective.

Id. at *3 (first emphasis added, second in original).  In other words, the plaintiffs (and others before them) were relying on a snippet to misread Medtronic and overstate its holding.  The district court went on to state that the FDA’s regulations connect 510(k) clearance to safety and effectiveness, too:

Indeed, the FDA regulations provide that if the agency has found that a device is substantially equivalent to—but has “technological characteristics” that are different from—a predicate device, then that means the agency has concluded that “[t]he data submitted . . . contains information, including clinical data if deemed necessary by the Commissioner, that demonstrates that the device is as safe and as effective as a legally marketed device.”

Id. (emphasis in original).  Finally, the district court noted that compliance with general and special controls, which Class II medical devices must do, further provides “reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device.” Id. There was no deceptive, no misleading statement.  Only true representations of a medical device’s regulatory pathway.  That is not the basis for a consumer fraud claim.

Nor is it consumer fraud when a manufacturer does not explain the difference between FDA clearance and FDA approval. The district court ruled that a manufacturer’s duty to consumers is limited to warranty obligations, absent an affirmative misrepresentation or a “safety issue.” Id. at *4.  We are not sure this is an accurate statement of a medical device manufacturer’s duty to consumers, especially considering the presence of prescribing physicians (i.e., the learned intermediaries) for many devices.  We also can’t imagine a situation where a medical device manufacturer would be under a legal obligation to explain FDA regulations to consumers.  But even taking the rule at face value, the plaintiffs alleged no safety risk. Id. at *5.  Maybe they were unsatisfied with the results (i.e., effectiveness) and wanted their money back.  Whatever their beef was, it was not about safety.

The plaintiffs walked away with their core claims dismissed without leave to amend. The district court gave them another chance to plead that they actually observed other statements that they claimed were misleading, based on counsel’s representations at argument that their clients might have seen them. Id. at **5-6.  We don’t know.  It seems to us that if those facts existed, the plaintiffs would already have pleaded them.  The takeaway for us is the reality that the 510(k) process does tie into safety and efficacy.  Don’t let anyone tell you otherwise.

This post is from the non-Reed Smith side of the blog.

Today is a follow-up post on Bell v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharms, No. 17-1153, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90337 (W.D. PA. May 31, 2018). When we last blogged about this case back in February, the court had tossed out everything except negligence and fraud/misrepresentation claims on well-settled Pennsylvania law that prescription drug cases sound only in negligence. The court then dismissed the remaining claims for failure to satisfy TwIqbal pleading standards. Plaintiffs were afforded an opportunity to amend and re-plead the claims recognized under state law. They did. And once again, they don’t get by TwIqbal.

So, what’s missing this time around? The court starts out by noting that despite being dismissed for factual insufficiency, plaintiff made few factual revisions in the amended complaint. Id. at *4. So few that the court was able to essentially adopt its factual recitation from the first decision. Id. That’s an underwhelming start and things don’t improve for the plaintiff as the court examines each claim in turn.

Starting with plaintiff’s catch-all negligence claim, the court found “[t]he amended complaint contains a boilerplate laundry-list of alleged negligence that is virtually identical to the negligence claim in the original complaint.” Id. at *12. Since plaintiff just re-packaged his conclusory allegations from the original complaint, the amended complaint once again fails to state “any facts about how defendants breached their duty or how defendants’ conduct caused [plaintiff’s] injury.” Id. at *13. At the heart of plaintiff’s negligence claim was his allegation that defendants should have changed their label to warn about the risk of kidney injury following FDA approval. But for that claim to survive, plaintiff would have had to have pleaded what new information became available to warrant a change, what the changed warning should have said, and how any alleged breach was the cause of plaintiff’s injury. Id. at *13-14. Absent all those pieces, plaintiff’s negligence claim was dismissed.

Negligent misrepresentation was even easier to dismiss because it was an exact duplicate of the original complaint. Id. at *14. We’ve all heard the expression that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. Well, same allegations equal same result. Dismissal.

Next up was plaintiff’s negligent design claim. This claim was previously dismissed for failure to plead the availability of a safer, alternative design as required by Pennsylvania law. So, plaintiff argued he satisfied that requirement in the amended complaint by pointing to other available products. But different products are just that different products – not alternative ways to design the product at issue. Saying plaintiff could have taken a different product doesn’t do anything to establish how the design of defendant’s product was defective or how it could have been designed differently. Id. at *15. Another dismissal.

Last, plaintiff based his fraud claims on allegations that defendants concealed information about the risks of the drug from the FDA, the public, plaintiff, and plaintiff’s physicians. But fraud claims don’t just have to satisfy TwIqbal, they are held to the more rigorous Rule 9(b) standard. Generality won’t suffice. Id. at *16. And plaintiff’s claim was just that, too general. The amended complaint contained no allegations about what information was concealed. It was missing the “who, what, when, where and how” of defendants’ alleged fraud, i.e., the “first paragraph of any newspaper story.” Id. at *17. So, fraud was dismissed as well.

Despite the complete lack of factual support for any of plaintiff’s claims, he once again asked for a chance to re-plead. The court, somewhat reluctantly, granted the request but made it clear that any final attempt by plaintiff to fix these pleading deficiencies would have to be a significant improvement. Specifically, plaintiff has

to clearly articulate the legal theory he is pursuing and to allege sufficient facts to make each element of the claim plausible. He must also eliminate his overbroad, conclusory “shotgun” allegations so that defendants are given adequate notice of what [plaintiff] claims they did wrong.

Id. at *18-19. Given plaintiff’s track record, this seems like a fairly high hurdle to clear. Stay tuned to see if plaintiff tees it up for strike three.

 

Is fear of injury the same thing as injury?  The question answers itself.  At least it should.  They are not the same, and there are strong jurisprudential reasons for courts to throw out cases alleging mere fear of injury.  We have a No Injury scorecard documenting a pretty clear court consensus that fear of injury should not be enough to get a case to the jury.  Think of diet drug cases where the claim was an increased risk of heart valve injury.  Most courts concluded that such fear did not amount to actionable injury.  Considerations of Article III case or controversy or standing or ripeness usually persuaded courts that fear of physical injury simply did not cut it.  But not always.  So it is good that today’s case, Perez v. B. Braun Medical, Inc., 2018 WL 2316334 (S.D.N.Y. May 9, 2018), gets added to the defense side of the ledger.  In 2010, the plaintiff had been implanted with an IVC filter to treat her pulmonary embolism (PE) and deep vein thrombosis (DVT).  The implant was intended to be permanent.  In subsequent years there were reports of IVC filters causing problems via misalignment and migration.  In 2014, the FDA urged doctors to remove IVC filters within one to two months after the danger of PE subsides.  The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants in this case continued to market their IVC filter for long-term use — according to the court, the complaint alleged that the defendants were “defying the FDA’s general recommendations.”  Meanwhile, no doctor recommended that the plaintiff remove the IVC filter, even though in 2016 a CT scan showed that the tip of the IVC filter possibly had tilted.  That tipping point was apparently not enough to remove the filter, but was enough to file a lawsuit.  The complaint alleged that the IVC filter was defective and increased the risk that the plaintiff would suffer a serious injury. The plaintiff also referenced unspecified economic and psychological damages. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, arguing that the complaint did not adequately allege that the plaintiff had suffered any cognizable injury.  The court granted the motion to dismiss.  It analyzed the personal injury, warranty, fraud, and New York Business law claims separately, so we will do likewise.

1. Personal Injury Claims

The plaintiff alleged that her physical injuries were the post-implant likely tilting of the IVC filter, psychological trauma of living with a defective product implanted in her body, and the increased risk of future injuries due to the IVC filter.  The problem for the plaintiff was that New York law is reasonably clear that a mere threat of future harm is insufficient to impose liability against a defendant in a tort context.  To be sure, the complaint also alleged that the plaintiff “sustained serious personal injuries,” “serious physical injuries,” and “severe injuries,” that she suffered “loss of enjoyment of life, disability, and other losses,” and that she “incurred substantial medical costs and expenses to treat and care for Plaintiff’s injuries described herein.”  But those are more rote formulas than factual allegations.  The complaint certainly never described the nature of the injuries.  New York law does recognize claims for emotional distress, but such claims must be premised on truly outrageous conduct, and nothing like that resided in the complaint.  Perhaps the best thing that the plaintiff had was an allegation that the defendants marketed permanent filters even after the “FDA warnings that caution generally against long-term implantation of IVC filters.” But because those warnings, whether or not they said what the plaintiff alleged, did not happen until after the plaintiff’s implant, they could not preserve the plaintiff’s claims.

2. Breach of Warranty Claims

The defendants had a strong statute of imitations argument, because the clock on warranty claims usually starts at the time delivery, which was in 2010, more than seven years before the complaint was filed.  New York’s statute of limitations for warranty claims is four years.  The plaintiff trued to dodge the statute of limitations by arguing that the warranty explicitly extended to future performance, and that existed here because the defendants had stated that the IVC filters were safe and effective for permanent implantation.  But the complaint did not explain how the plaintiff’s particular IVC filter had fallen short.  Again, the mere tilting of the IVC filter, even with a risk of future harm, did not equate to a cognizable injury,  New York courts (like most courts on planet Earth) have acknowledged a policy of protecting court dockets from “being clogged with frivolous and unfounded claims.”  Warranty claims often seem like add-ons in product liability cases, and here they were frail add-ons to already frail claims.

3. Fraud Based Claims

Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b) requires that fraud claims be pleaded with specificity, and the Perez complaint did not come close to meeting this standard.  Again, the plaintiff leaned on the defendants’ representations that the IVC filters were safe and effective for their intended and reasonably foreseeable use.  But the plaintiff never explained why those statements are fraudulent. After all, the the complaint admitted that IVC filters can be used to reduce the risk of PE and DVT, and it nowhere alleges that the plaintiff’s filter performed in a manner different from how the defendants describe.  Whatever the complications and injuries that the defendants failed to warn the plaintiff about, the complaint did not specifically describe them, and could not allege that the plaintiff had sustained any such complications and injuries.  Moreover, the complaint lacked any facts showing that the alleged omissions were made with an intent to deceive.  The plaintiff simply had not made out a case for fraud.

4. New York General Business Law Claim

The complaint’s final count alleged that the defendants engaged in consumer fraud in violation of New York General Business Law Sections 349 and 350<http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=L&pubNum=1000081&cite=NYGBS350&originatingDoc=Ib48241005e2b11e89868e3d0ed3e7ebe&refType=LQ&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.FindAndPrintPortal)>. Section 349 prohibits “[d]eceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any business, trade or commerce or in the furnishing of any service in this state.” Section 350 prohibits “[f]alse advertising.”  As with the plaintiff’s breach of warranty and fraud based claims, the New York Business Law claims failed to show what materially misleading representations the defendants made. That there are side effects associated with IVC filters that are implanted long-term, does not mean that the plaintiff’s IVC filter “had not been effective for implantation into the IVC to prevent PE and DVT for which it was designed or that it is not safer than the alternative.”

What is interesting about the Perez case is how the lack of a real injury did not just undermine the personal injury claims (seems obvious enough), but also undermined the representational claims.  What is doubly interesting about the Perez case is that the no-injury defense worked with respect to an implanted device.  Most of the good cases on our no injury scorecard involved drugs.  Arguably, a plaintiff has a little more to work with when there is a device implanted in the body.  There is a continuing exposure.  Nevertheless, mere fear of injury could not overcome the court’s fear of frivolous claims.

This post is from the non-Reed Smith side of the blog.

We’ve posted on two other occasions about the Shuker v. Smith & Nephew case as the Eastern District of Pennsylvania systematically dismantled the case on the grounds of preemption and pleading deficiencies. You can find those posts here and here. Unfortunately, the recent Third Circuit opinion deciding plaintiff’s appeal isn’t the full affirmance we had been hoping for. But before you get the wrong idea, the Third Circuit got the most important issue right – when you have a multi-component medical device, PMA preemption is to be addressed on a component-by-component basis. After that, however, the appellate decision does some unraveling of the district’s dismissal of the claims that survived preemption and so the case is going back to the Eastern District.

Briefly, the facts are that plaintiff underwent a hip replacement surgery in which his surgeon opted to use a Smith & Nephew device that consisted of several component parts, one of which was the R3 metal liner. Shuker v. Smith & Nephew, PLC, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 5160, *11 (3d Cir. Mar. 1, 2018). Unlike the other components of the device, the liner had undergone FDA Pre-Market approval. Id. And, the parties are in agreement that the surgeon’s decision to use the R3 metal liner with this particular device was an off-label use. Id. at *12. Plaintiff suffered complications that required additional revision surgeries.

In its first decision, the district court tossed out almost all claims as preempted and any non-preempted claims for being inadequately pleaded. When plaintiff filed an amended complaint attempting to correct the pleading deficiencies for the non-preempted claims, he again missed the mark and his remaining claims were dismissed with prejudice. The district court also entered a decision finding that it lacked personal jurisdiction over Smith & Nephew, PLC – a foreign parent company. Those three rulings are what the Third Circuit addressed in last week’s decision.

The question of how to apply PMA-preemption to a multi-component device was one of first impression in the Courts of Appeal. Id. at *2. And it is an important question because surgeons engaging in off-label use do mix and match parts with different regulatory backgrounds. The Third Circuit did a precise analysis that landed at the proper conclusion. However, the analysis does start up with a bit of a hiccup. Since we are talking about PMA-preemption, we are dealing with express preemption. Yet, in a footnote the court refused to follow the Supreme Court’s recent abolition of the presumption against preemption in the express preemption context set forth in Puerto Rico v. Franklin Cal. Tax-Free Tr., 136 S.Ct. 1938 (2016), because that decision wasn’t a products liability case and therefore did not directly concern the “historic police powers of the States.” Shuker, at *16n.9. We respectfully disagree with this conclusion for all the reasons we mention in our post discussing Franklin and simply point out that other courts have reached the opposite conclusion. Accord Watson v. Air Methods Corp., 870 F.3d 812, 817 (8th Cir. 2017) (following Franklin and rejecting presumption against preemption in express preemption case); EagleMed LLC v. Cox, 868 F.3d 893, 903, (10th Cir. 2017) (same); Atay v. Cty. of Maui, 842 F.3d 688, 699 (9th Cir. 2016) (same); Conklin v. Medtronic, Inc., ___ P.3d ___, 2017 WL 4682107, at *2 (Ariz. App. Oct. 19, 2017) (under Franklin courts may not invoke a presumption against preemption in PMA preemption cases); Olmstead v. Bayer Corp., 2017 WL 3498696, at *3 n.2 (N.D.N.Y. Aug. 15, 2017) (plaintiff’s assertion of presumption against preemption in PMA preemption case held “frivolous” after Franklin).

Fortunately, that did not derail the Third Circuit from ultimately concluding that plaintiff’s negligence, strict liability, and breach of implied warranty claims were all preempted under Riegel. To do that, the court had to determine to what device it was applying the preemption analysis. Plaintiff argued that you have to look at the device that was implanted as a whole. Whereas defendant, bolstered by an amicus brief filed by the FDA at the court’s request, maintained that the proper focus is on the component of the device with which plaintiff takes issue. Shuker, at *18. Agreeing with the defense position, the court anchored its decision on three findings. First, the FDCA defines “device” to include “components, parts, and accessories.” Id. at *19. Second, the FDCA’s off-label provisions specifically acknowledge that a physician can and will use components separately from the system for which the FDA approved use. Id. at *20. And despite the use to which the component is put, the FDA’s PMA-regulations for the component follow with it. In other words, “premarket approval requirements apply equally to the components, as manufacturers generally may not deviate from the requirements imposed through premarket approval regardless of how [a component] is used.” Id. (citation and quotation marks omitted). Third, the FDA’s position is that the device is not limited to the device as a whole but includes components. Further, the FDA is charged with assuring the safety and effectiveness of components as well as finished devices. Id. at *21-22.

Therefore,

[t]aken together, the statutory definition of “device,” the treatment of off-label uses, and the guidance of the FDA all counsel in favor of scrutinizing hybrid systems at the component-level. . . .. And the Riegel test is properly framed at Step One as “whether the Federal Government has established requirements applicable” to a component of the hybrid system.

Id. at *22-23. Because the part of the device plaintiff attacked was the R3 metal liner which was premarket-approved, any state tort claim that seeks to impose requirements that are different from or in addition to the FDA’s requirements for that component are preempted. That includes plaintiff’s negligence, strict liability, and implied warranty claims.

The appellate court next reviewed the dismissal of plaintiff’s claims that survived preemption – negligence and fraud claims based on alleged off-label promotion in violation of federal law – and found the negligence claim was adequately pleaded but that plaintiff failed again to satisfy Rule 9’s heightened standard for pleading fraud. As to negligence, the court found TwIqbal satisfied as to duty, breach, causation where plaintiff alleged:

  • the R3 metal liner was approved only for use with a different system and therefore under federal law defendant had a duty to refrain from false or misleading advertising;
  • in a press release, defendant misleadingly marketed the R3 metal liner as an option for the system used by plaintiff’s surgeon (one other than the one it was approved for); and
  • plaintiff’s surgeon “either read” or “was aware” of the press release.

Id. at *28-29. Like the district court, the Third Circuit considered and relied upon the press release cited in plaintiff’s complaint. Unlike the district court, the Third Circuit appears to only focus on the portions of the press release upon which plaintiff relied (see prior post for more details) and concludes that’s enough to get plaintiff to the discovery stage. Id. at *29n.18. Although we wonder if the court’s calling plaintiff’s allegations enough to “nudge” the claim over the threshold is a veiled acknowledgement of just how narrowly the complaint squeaked by. See id. at *30.

Meanwhile, plaintiff’s fraud claim needed more than a nudge and it didn’t get even that. The court focused on plaintiff’s failure to plead justifiable reliance on the alleged misrepresentation. The “read” or “was aware” of allegation that sufficed for negligence lacked the requisite details regarding how the press release “induced or influenced” plaintiff’s surgeon for a fraud claim. Id. at *33-34. Plaintiff has to allege the “circumstances of the alleged [influence on Mr. Shuker’s surgeon] with sufficient particularity to place [defendant] on notice of the precise misconduct with which it is charged.” Id. at *34. Despite this having been plaintiff’s second failed attempt at meeting the pleading standard on fraud, the Third Circuit decided to give plaintiff another chance and found the claim should only be dismissed without prejudice.

Finally, there was a separate finding by the district court that it did not have personal jurisdiction over Smith & Nephew, PLC, a foreign parent company. The Third Circuit agreed with the district court that specific personal jurisdiction was not conferred on a stream-of-commerce theory. Id. at *36-37. We’ve talked about this before and more recently in light of BMS v. Superior Court, and like the Third Circuit “we have no cause to revisit” the precedent on the issue (but you should feel free to). But the court did think plaintiff alleged enough in his complaint to allow some limited jurisdictional discovery on possible alter ego based personal jurisdiction. Id. at *38-40. Emphasis on the limited part. See id. at *40n.20 (“District Court should take care to circumscribe the scope of discovery . . . to only the factual questions necessary to determine its jurisdiction;” further referencing proportionality amendment to Rule 26(b)(1)).

So, on the third pass plaintiff got a little life breathed back into this case which is unfortunate, but as the first appellate decision on component preemption – we’ll put it in the win column.

A (relatively) long time ago in a state not so far away, the Michigan Legislature enacted the Michigan Product Liability Act.  It contained a provision providing the manufacturers of FDA-approved drugs with immunity from product liability absent the application of two narrow exceptions.  A challenge to the constitutionality of the provision soon followed and the Michigan Supreme Court, in Taylor v. Smithkline Beecham Corp., 658 N.W.2d 127 (Mich. 2003), basically said the legislature can enact a law like that and the immunity on drug manufacturers was as broad as it seemed.  (This guest post provides a nice history.)  Other decisions followed, like Garcia v. Wyeth-Ayerst Labs., 385 F.3d 961 (6th Cir. 2004), and Desiano v. Warner-Lambert & Co., 467 F.3d 85, 98 (2d Cir. 2006), aff’d by equally divided court, 552 U.S. 440 (2008), coming down on opposite sides of the issue of whether the first exception—the defendant “before the event that allegedly caused the injury . . . intentionally withholds from or misrepresents to [FDA] information concerning the drug that is required to be submitted” under the FDCA that would have prevented original or continued approval—runs into Buckman preemption.  What also followed was that Michiganders who wanted to sue over alleged drug started to go elsewhere.  (Not to galaxies several parsecs—a unit of distance, not time—away, but just to other states.)  They did so because they hoped that the immunity in § 600.2946(5) would not follow them.

We have called this phenomenon the Michigan diaspora, and, while the dispersal of the Michigan litigation tourists is merely temporary, their cases do keep popping up in some likely spots.  Just last month, we discussed how West Virginia state courts have applied Michigan law to the claims of Michiganders hoping to find more plaintiff-friendly law.  We have also discussed how the claims of Michiganians claiming gynecomastia from Risperdal have fared in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, a jurisdiction that has seen plenty of action in that particular litigation.  We praised the court’s application of the Michigan statute to bar the claims.  The plaintiffs in that case appealed to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, which has reversed more than a few defense rulings we have liked.  Instead In re Risperdal Litig., __ A.3d __, 2017 WL 5712521 (Pa. Super. Nov. 28, 2017), respected the force of the Michigan Legislature’s clear enactment and affirmed.

On appeal, the plaintiffs agreed that Michigan law applied, but argued that the statute provided no protection where the use was off-label.  When the plaintiffs (actually all but one of them) were prescribed the drug it had been approved but did not yet have an indication for use in juveniles, which they were at the time.  The statute, however, hinged on whether “the drug was approved for safety and efficacy,” not whether the particular indication had been approved.  Federal courts had followed “the plain language of the statute” and found off-label use was irrelevant to the application of immunity as long as the drug was approved.  2017 WL 5712521, **5-6.  “Thus, we conclude that as long s a drug has received approval, and its label is compliant with FDA regulations, the MPLA applies to bar any product liability claim, despite the drug’s indicated uses.” Id. at *6.

Next, plaintiffs argued that they had enough evidence to raise a genuine issue as to the statutory exception based on a fraud on the FDA.  Defendants claimed that any attempt to meet the exception would be preempted because the FDA had never found such a fraud.  The Superior Court did not take the opportunity to add to either side of the preemption ledger because plaintiffs did not have the evidence they needed anyway. Id. at *7.  The statute did not just require any fraud on FDA, but a withholding of information such that its proper submission would have meant “the drug would not have been approved” or FDA “would have withdrawn approval for the drug.”  Plaintiffs argued that their evidence of purported fraud was relevant to the approval of the additional indication for juvenile use, but they never contended that the drug would not have been approved or would have been withdrawn.  “[T]he proof of fraud a plaintiff is required to present in order to receive the benefit of the fraud exception must relate to the initial FDA approval.” Id. at *8.  Given that FDA had denied a citizen’s petition in 2014 that requested the drug be withdrawn, it was clear that any purported fraud related to the application to add the juvenile use indication almost a decade earlier was insufficient to trigger the exception. Id. We all know Yoda famously said “Do or do not.  There is no try.”  Here, plaintiffs tried and tried again, but they did not get around the statutory immunity despite their sojourn to Pennsylvania.

 

As our PMA preemption scorecard makes clear, warning claims are preempted under Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc., 552 U.S. 312 (2008), because the preemptive language, “different from or in addition to,” precludes plaintiffs from demanding more or different warnings.  Since warning claims are the bread and butter of prescription medical product liability, plaintiffs will try just about anything to get around that simple fact.

One common plaintiff-side tactic is to relabel failure to warn as “fraud.”  Plaintiffs then argue that “fraud” claims shouldn’t be preempted, either because they are predicated “on a more general obligation[,] the duty not to deceive,” Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 505 U.S. 504, 528-29 (1992), or because they are a “parallel” claim associated both with that “general” state-law duty and FDA regulations prohibiting “false or misleading” statements.

While sometimes plaintiffs gain some traction with “fraud” claims asserting affirmatively false statements, most failure to warn claims involve omissions.  Thus, plaintiffs are also wont to argue that “fraudulent concealment” or “fraud by omission” claims should also be unpreempted.  Here plaintiffs lose.  Such concealment/omission claims are always at least “in addition to” a PMA device’s FDA-approved labeling.

The key case, Perez v. Nidek Co., 711 F.3d 1109 (9th Cir. 2013), held that not only is a “fraud by omission claim [] expressly preempted” – but “obvious[ly]” so.  Id. at 1118.

The teachings from the Supreme Court cases plus our application of MDA preemption . . . lead to an obvious result:  [plaintiff’s] fraud by omission claim is expressly preempted by § 360k(a).  [T]he [omission] claim here depends on a requirement that is “in addition to” those federal requirements.  [Plaintiff] effectively seeks to write in a new provision to the FDCA: that physicians and medical device companies must affirmatively tell patients when medical devices have not been approved for a certain use. . . .  Just as significant, the alleged missing disclosure . . . “relates to the safety or effectiveness” of the [PMA device].

Id. at 1118-19 (emphasis added).   See Martin v. Medtronic, Inc., 2017 WL 825410, at *7 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 24, 2017) (following Perez; fraudulent concealment claim expressly preempted); Frere v. Medtronic, Inc., 2016 WL 1533524, at *10 (C.D. Cal. April, 6, 2016) (same); Jones v. Medtronic, 89 F. Supp.3d 1035, 1050 (D. Ariz. 2015) (same); Hawkins v. Medtronic, Inc., 2014 WL 346622, at *6 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 30, 2014) (same).

This rationale means that, the “distinction between claims premised on false misrepresentations and those premised on omissions” has been described as “the key dividing line” for preemption purposes.  Schouest v. Medtronic, Inc., 13 F. Supp.3d 692, 701 (S.D. Tex. 2014).

The affirmative misrepresentation/omission distinction is representative of the two types of claims [plaintiff] is asserting: on the one hand, that [defendant] did not do enough, and on the other, that [defendant] did too much.

Id.

In another claim, like Perez and Schouest, alleging failure to warn of risks of off-label use of a PMA device as “fraudulent concealment,” the court held such claims expressly preempted to “to the extent it is based on any alleged omissions or concealments.” Byrnes v. Small, 142 F. Supp.3d 1262, 1269 (M.D. Fla. 2015).

Plaintiffs have not identified any federal requirement to inform the public or to update warning labels regarding the dangers of the off-label use of medical devices.  Therefore, to the extent this claim is premised on [defendant’s] alleged concealment of information . . ., it is expressly preempted, because requiring [defendant] to warn [prescribers] of the dangers of the off-label use of [the device] would clearly be different from, or in addition to, the federal requirements.

Id. (citation, footnote, and quotation marks omitted).

In Sadler v. Advanced Bionics, Inc., 929 F. Supp.2d 670 (W.D. Ky. 2013), state “law for fraudulent omissions . . . requires that the defendant have a duty to disclose information.”  Id. at 683 (citation omitted).

Plaintiffs cite no federal duty to disclose to the public or to patients the omitted information.  Therefore, to the extent Plaintiffs assert that [defendant] was under some state law duty to disclose, this amounts to an additional requirement, which §360k expressly preempts.

Id. at 683-84 (citation and footnote omitted)

In Leonard v. Medtronic, Inc., 2011 WL 3652311 (N.D. Ga. Aug. 9, 2011), the plaintiffs claimed that their concealment allegations were “actually a fraud claim” when faced with a preemption motion.  That dodge went nowhere:

This claim is preempted because it would require [defendant] to give different, additional warnings about the [device’s] safety and effectiveness, which is strictly prohibited without FDA approval. . . .  Plaintiffs’ fraud claim thus necessarily imposes state requirements that are “different from, or in addition to” the federal ones.

Id. at *11 (citation omitted).

Likewise, in Littlebear v. Advanced Bionics, LLC, 896 F. Supp. 2d 1085, 1091 (N.D. Okla. 2012), the plaintiff “d[id] not claim [defendant] made any affirmative misrepresentations” but only that it did not disclose its use of a purportedly non-FDA-approved part.  Id. at 1091.  Since no FDA regulation mandated such a disclosure, the “fraud by nondisclosure [wa]s expressly preempted.”  Similarly, in Purcel v. Advanced Bionics Corp., 2010 WL 2679988 (N.D. Tex. June 30, 2010), plaintiff’s “claims of fraud by nondisclosure . . . impose a requirement in addition to those approved by the FDA — the duty to warn consumers if devices are adulterated − and are therefore preempted.”  Id. at *6. See Burrell v. Bayer Corp., ___ F. Supp.3d ___, 2017 WL 1955333, at *8 (W.D.N.C. May 10, 2017) (fraudulent concealment claims “alleg[ing] misrepresentations [that] are indistinguishable from FDA-approved labeling statements” held preempted); Richardson v. Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 2016 WL 4546369, at *9 (D. Idaho Aug. 30, 2016) (“fraud by concealment claim addresses essentially the same conduct as the failure to warn claim” and is expressly preempted because state “law cannot require stronger duties than the FDA actively requires under the MDA”); Humana Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek USA, Inc., 133 F. Supp.3d 1068, 1076 n.12 (W.D. Tenn. 2015) (“fraud by omission is expressly preempted under the FDCA”) (quoting Perez, supra); Day v. Howmedica Osteonics Corp., 2015 WL 13469348, at *8 (D. Colo. Dec. 24, 2015) (“because Plaintiffs’ concealment and misrepresentation claims take issue with the labeling and representations made regarding the [device] and the clinical trial of the device, these claims are preempted”); Cline v. Advanced Neuromodulation Systems, Inc., 17 F. Supp.3d 1275, 1288 (N.D. Ga. 2014) (“[t]o the extent Plaintiff’s fraud claim is based on Defendant’s omissions of information regarding known device failures, it is preempted”); Ali v. Allergan USA, Inc., 2012 WL 3692396, at *17 (E.D. Va. Aug. 23, 2012) (“The cause of action for fraud by nondisclosure is also preempted by the MDA because it would impose requirements under [state] law that add to federal requirements on statements [defendant] can make concerning [the device].”); Latimer v. Medtronic, Inc., 2015 WL 5222644, at *8 (Ga. Super. Sept. 4, 2015) (“a fraud by omission claim is expressly preempted . . . because the underlying state-law disclosure requirement would necessarily be different from, or in addition to the requirements applicable” under federal law) (quoting Perez, supra).

The converse is also true. In McLaughlin v. Bayer Corp., 172 F. Supp.3d 804 (E.D. Pa. 2016), the basis for the plaintiffs’ fraudulent concealment claim against the maker of a PMA device was an alleged “duty to disclose” under the FDCA.  Id. at 825.  Because “[t]he Complaint in this case alleges only that federal law and the PMA imposed a duty to speak by requiring [defendant] to disclose certain information,” it was impliedly preempted under Buckman Co. v. Plaintiffs Legal Committee, 531 U.S. 341 (2001).  172 F. Supp.3d at 825 (emphasis original).  Since plaintiffs “do[] not allege that [state] law imposed any duty on [defendant] to disclose the allegedly undisclosed information . . ., the “fraudulent concealment claim, as pled, exists ‘solely by virtue of FDCA requirements,’” and was thus preempted under BuckmanId.  Accord Perez, 711 F.3d at 1119-20 (fraud by omission claim impliedly preempted because premised on defendant’s non-disclosure concerning scope of FDA’s premarket approval); Houston v. Medtronic, Inc., 957 F. Supp. 2d 1166, 1178 (C.D. Cal. 2013) (fraudulent concealment claim impliedly preempted); Bush v. Thoratec Corp., 837 F. Supp.2d 603, 608-09 (E.D. La. 2011) (same).

Since fraudulent concealment/omission claims in PMA device litigation are merely failure to warn claims with a scienter requirement – and scienter is irrelevant to express preemption under §360k – it is only fitting that these claims are preempted for the same fundamental reasons as warning claims.

The beast part may be a bit of an exaggeration, but it serves the purpose of depicting what at least on the surface are two very opposite things. But if you delve more deeply, you find a lot of similarities. So many similarities that the two things shouldn’t really be opposites at all. That’s what happens in the fairy tale. The beast is really a prince. But life’s not a fairy tale. And neither is pharmaceutical litigation. And if it were, it wouldn’t be a Disney version, it would be one of those original Grimm Brothers’ stories – the dark and twisty ones. And that’s what we have today. Two cases that come to opposite conclusions but based on the same allegations about the same failure to warn about the same drug. We should be talking about a beauty and a prince. Instead we have a beauty and a beast . . . or at least maybe a frog.

Within two days of each other, two decisions were handed down in cases involving the generic prescription drug amiodarone manufactured by the same company – Hernandez v. Sandoz Inc.,  2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 120938 (N.D. Ill. Aug 1, 2017) and Tutwiler v. Sandoz Inc., 2017 WL 3315381 (N.D. Ala. Aug. 3, 2017). Both were second bites of the apple. In Hernandez, defendants moved for reconsideration of the court’s prior ruling rejecting preemption and allowing a failure to warn claim premised on defendants’ failure to provide medication guides per federal regulations. We blogged about that earlier decision here. In Tutwiler, the court had previously dismissed that same claim but plaintiff included it in her amended complaint. Defendants moved to dismiss again. Both courts stuck to their prior decisions.

Our prior post on Hernandez explains how we think the court got preemption wrong – notably by applying the Seventh Circuit’s awful PMA, medical device express preemption decision in Bausch v. Stryker to a pharmaceutical drug case and finding a parallel violation claim. On reconsideration, defendants argued that the court misapplied Bausch. In response, the court cited other district courts within the Seventh Circuit to also have applied Bausch to pharmaceutical cases, including another amiodarone case that we blogged about here. Hernandez, at *5-7. The old adage two wrongs don’t make a right comes to mind.

Unable to make the court see that this is really an implied preemption case – plaintiff was seeking to enforce an FDCA requirement regarding distribution of medication guides – defendants were left to argue that the claim isn’t really parallel to a state law duty to warn. There is no Illinois state law duty to warn pharmacists so they can in turn warn consumers. In fact, in prescription drug cases, the manufacturer’s duty is to warn the prescribing physician – not the consumer. Id. at *9n.4. From the court’s description of plaintiff’s allegations, plaintiff alleges both traditional failure to warn the prescriber and failure to warn the consumer by failing to provide medication guides. Id. at *9. The court then seems to conflate all those allegations into one plausible failure to warn claim. See id. (“The court remains convinced that plaintiff has sufficiently alleged each of the elements necessary to establish a failure to warn claim under Illinois law despite focusing much of his complaint on his allegations that defendant’s actions violated the FDCA.”). By alleging both failure to comply with the FDCA and failure to warn the prescriber plaintiff got to dodge both preemption and learned intermediary. But those are two separate claims and they should both fail.

And that’s how you turn the beast/frog into a prince. You apply both preemption and learned intermediary like in Tutwiler. First, in this case the court already dismissed plaintiff’s traditional failure to warn claim – the failure to warn plaintiff’s prescriber – under Mensing. These are after all generic prescription drugs and the Supreme Court has said they don’t survive conflict preemption. Which is presumably why plaintiffs in these cases are focused on the medication guide allegation. In Tutwiler, plaintiffs argued that failure to provide the medication violated the “duty of sameness” on which Mensing rests making Mensing inapplicable. Id. at *2. As we noted above, failure to warn based on failing to adhere to an FDCA requirement should also be impliedly preempted under Buckman or the prohibition of private causes of action to enforce the FDCA.

But the Tutwiler court said it didn’t need to consider preemption because the claim is barred by the learned intermediary doctrine. In Alabama, like in Illinois, in a prescription drug the case the duty to warn runs to the physician. Id.

[I]t does not follow . . . that if the manufacturer inadequately warns the physician, it owes an independent duty to warn the patient directly. This is the reason why this Court previously stated that “it appears unlikely that Plaintiff can state a failure-to-warn claim based on Defendant’s failure to provide a Medication Guide to her pharmacy that avoids the application of both the learned-intermediary doctrine and Mensing.”

Id. And there’s the beauty.

There is one thing that both Hernandez and Tutwiler agree on – plaintiffs’ off-label promotion claims are fraud claims that must be pleaded to the heightened standard required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b). Both plaintiffs tried to argue that these were negligent marketing claims. Hernandez, at *3; Tutwiler, at *2. But both courts were unpersuaded by those labels given the context of the allegations. Hernandez, at *4 (“Plaintiff’s complaint is a sprawling and, at times, confusing collection of largely unnecessary allegations that, for the most part, seem to attempt to assert a fraudulent misrepresentation claim as it relates to off-label promotion.”; Tutwiler, at *2 (Plaintiff “claims that Defendant engaged in a ‘concerted and systemic effort to persuade physicians’ . . . that the drug was safe and efficacious for off-label uses). Plaintiff Hernandez is getting another chance to re-plead his fraud claims with specificity. Since this was Plaintiff Tutwiler’s second attempt, and her complaint still failed “to identify a single statement in any promotional material to support [Plaintiff’s] contention that Defendant unlawfully promoted amiodarone for [an off-label use],” her claim is dismissed.

They say beauty is fleeting – and so too is a beautiful case. The beast/frog on the other hand lives to see another day.

Ever since Buckman Co. v. Plaintiffs’ Legal Committee, 531 U.S. 341 (2001), held that state-law claims alleging fraud on the FDA are preempted, plaintiffs have been attempting to find some other way of bringing claims that attribute FDA actions to a defendant’s false pretenses.  Since preemption is based on the Supremacy Clause, and the constitutional relationship between the federal and state legal systems, the doctrine doesn’t apply where recovery is sought under a federal statute.  Since the False Claims Act (“FCA”) is a federal statute, sporadic attempts have been made to bring private fraud-on-the FDA-claims under that statute.  Bexis, who invented what became the Buckman fraud-on-the-FDA/implied-preemption defense in the Bone Screw litigation, even worked on an amicus brief in one such case, United States ex rel. Gilligan v. Medtronic, Inc., 403 F.3d 386 (6th Cir. 2005), that was ultimately decided (favorably to the defense) on other grounds.

A little less than a year ago we reported on an excellent FCA result in United States ex rel. D’Agostino v. EV3, Inc., 153 F. Supp.3d 519 (D. Mass. 2015).  Ever since we’ve been holding our breath, because the First Circuit has been known for pro-plaintiff rulings in cases against our drug and medical device clients.  Indeed, the First Circuit once led our list the worst drug/medical device cases of the year for two years running – in 2012 and 2013.  Whether something’s changed since then in the First Circuit, we can’t say.  But we can report that the district court’s dismissal of fraud-on-the-FDA-based FCA claims in D’Agostino has just been affirmed with an excellently reasoned decision.  See D’Agostino v. EV3, Inc., ___ F.3d ___, 2016 WL 7422943 (1st Cir. Dec. 23, 2016).

The facts in D’Agostino were thoroughly explained in our prior post.  Briefly, the relator (a fired sales rep) alleged that the defendants pulled fast ones on the FDA with respect to the approvals/supplemental approvals of two medical devices, one called “Onyx” and the other “Axium” (these defendants evidently like “x” as much as did the former Standard Oil of New Jersey).  The relator-plaintiff claimed that the defendants:  (1) sought approval of Onyx for a narrow indication, but intended to promote it more broadly off-label (exactly the claim in Buckman); (2) failed to live up to promises made to the FDA concerning extensive surgeon training in using Onyx (also a form of fraud on the FDA); (3) concealed the failure of Onyx’s active ingredient in a different device (ditto); and (4) failed to recall earlier versions of Axium after obtaining FDA approval (not fraud on the FDA, but a theory that could dangerously penalize innovation).  See D’Agostino, 2016 WL 7422943, at ??? (for some reason WL has omitted star paging, so we’ll also cite to the slip opinion), slip op. at 4-8.  Critically, although the FDA was informed of all of these claims, the Agency never instituted any enforcement action, nor did the government elect to join the D’Agostino FCA action.  Id. at 9, 15.  As discussed in the prior post, the district court dismissed all of these claims with prejudice as futile.

Continue Reading Fraud on the FDA Doesn’t Fly Under the FCA Either

People send us things to consider discussing in our posts. Usually, those things are court decisions in drug and device cases.  Sometimes, they are so far afield from our comfort zone that we do not give them much consideration.  This week, we received a motion from a False Claims Act case that we thought was interesting enough to enlist a colleague to add some subject matter expertise while we fretted about the election, work, the election, and some other stuff (i.e., the election).  Much of the credit for this post goes to Andy Bernasconi, a fine lawyer for a crazy Red Sox and Patriots fan.

While we do dabble in the FCA on this blog, we lean on Andy for a quick primer on the FCA’s provisions.  Congress originally passed the FCA in 1863 as a way to deter and punish government contractors’ fraud against the U.S. and Union troops during the Civil War.  The statute (as amended) generally creates liability for any person who knowingly submits a materially false claim demanding payment from the United States. See 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1). An FCA violation is punishable by treble damages, civil penalties of up to $21,563 for each false claim, and an award of attorneys’ fees. Id. §§ 3729(a)(1) &(3); id. § 3730(d)(1); 81 Fed. Reg. 42491 (June 30, 2016).

One of the most notable aspects of the FCA is that it contains unique qui tam provisions that permit a private whistleblower, also known as a “relator,” to file FCA claims on behalf of the federal government. Id. § 3730(b)(1). In doing so, the relator files the case under seal, at which point the Justice Department investigates the allegations and decides whether the government will intervene and take over the case to litigate for itself. Id. §§ 3730(b)(2), (4).  If the government declines to intervene in the case, the relator may litigate the case in the name of, and on behalf of, the government. Id. § 3730(c)(3).

Continue Reading Putting the False in False Claims Act Cases