All posts by Seth A. Goldberg

Specific Facts Suggest Hospitals and Insurers Agreed to Group Boycott

A per se violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1, generally requires an agreement among horizontal competitors that unreasonably restrains trade. To withstand a motion to dismiss, a Section 1 plaintiff must allege facts that suggest direct of evidence of an agreement among the defendants, as opposed to alleging facts that merely are consistent with parallel conduct. These principles have been referred to by some courts as creating a heightened pleading standard for Section 1 claims.

In Arapahoe Surgery Center, LLC, et al. v. Cigna Healthcare, Inc., et al., 2015 U.S. Dist. Lexis 28375 (D. CO.), the Colorado District Court determined that the plaintiffs’ allegations of a group boycott were sufficient to meet the pleading requirements under Section 1, and therefore denied a motion to dismiss filed by three insurance carrier defendants. The specificity of the factual allegations concerning the agreement among the defendants, and the acts in furtherance thereof, underscore the importance of antitrust compliance in the healthcare and health insurance industries. Continue reading Specific Facts Suggest Hospitals and Insurers Agreed to Group Boycott

Fees and Costs Awarded to False Claims Act Defendant

A recent decision in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York provides fair warning to qui tam relators who assert erroneous claims under the False Claims Act (“FCA”) that they could be hit with legal fees and expenses pursuant to 31 U.S.C. § 3730, which permits such an award “upon a finding that the . . . claims were objectively frivolous, irrespective of plaintiff’s subjective intent.”  Mikes v. Straus, 274 F.3d 687, 705 (2d Cir. 2001).

On December 1, 2014, in U.S.,  et al., ex  rel. Fox Rx, Inc., 1:12-cv-00275, defendant Managed Health Care Associates Long Term Care Network, Inc. (“MHA”), was awarded attorneys’ fees and expenses because the relator’s, Fox Rx, Inc.’ (“Fox”),  claim that MHA, which negotiates reimbursement rates, among other things, on behalf of a network of pharmacies, allegedly (i) failed to substitute generic drugs for named brand drugs, and (ii) dispensed drugs beyond their termination date, was objectively frivolous given that the plain language of the very agreement Fox attached to its second amended complaint demonstrated that MHA did not itself dispense drugs, and exercised no control or supervision of its network pharmacies’ dispensing. Continue reading Fees and Costs Awarded to False Claims Act Defendant

Another Win for a False Claims Act Defendant

On January 2, 2015, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California threw out claims that Walgreens pharmacy violated the federal and California false claims acts on the basis that the plaintiff failed to meet the applicable stringent pleading requirements.

In Irwin v. Walgreens, 2:13-cv-08473, a whistleblower/Relator contended that Walgreens cheated Medicare and Medi-Cal out of millions of dollars by establishing schemes to bill those government healthcare programs for prescriptions that were never picked up by patients, rather than restocking the drugs and reversing any associated charges to the government payers.  Among other things, the complaint asserted that, as demonstrated by the fact that they were not picked up by the patients, the prescriptions were not medically necessary, and therefore should not have been billed.  The complaint sought money damages, including a penalty of up to $11,000 for each violation and treble damages.  In September 2014, the government declined to intervene in the qui tam action. Continue reading Another Win for a False Claims Act Defendant

False Claims and Anti-Kickback Defendants Should Insist on Discovery from the Whistleblower/Relator

One arrow in the quiver for healthcare providers sued for violations of false claims and anti-kickback statutes is pressing for discovery from the whistleblower/relator, including a deposition of the relator.  The failure of the whistleblower to comply with the discovery obligations could result in meaningful sanctions, including dismissal.

In Guthrie v. A Plus Home Health Care, Inc. et al, 0:12-cv-60629-WPD (S.D. FL), the relator, William Guthrie, sued a home health care provider, its seven doctors, and their spouses, alleging that the doctors and their spouses implemented a fraudulent scheme of compensation and referral payments resulting in violations of the False Claims Act, the Stark Act, and the federal Anti-Kickback Statute. Continue reading False Claims and Anti-Kickback Defendants Should Insist on Discovery from the Whistleblower/Relator