On June 3, the U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division’s Washington, D.C., office filed a statement of interest in a relator’s action, arguing that “[c]onduct giving rise to a regulatory violation can also give rise to” False Claims Act liability.<\/p>\n
The case is U.S. ex rel. Patricia Crocano v. Trividia Health Inc.<\/em>, before the\u00a0U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.<\/p>\n Specifically, the DOJ requested “that the ruling not foreclose the possibility that, under certain circumstances,”\u00a0conduct that violates the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act or\u00a0U.S. Food and Drug Administration\u00a0regulations “could be material to the government’s payment decisions and provide a basis for FCA liability assuming all necessary FCA elements are demonstrated,”[3] colloquially known as “fraud on the FDA.”<\/p>\n This filing makes clear the DOJ’s decision to reawaken a theory of liability thought to be dead.<\/p>\n To read the full text of this article by Duane Morris attorneys Eric Breslin<\/a>, Frederick R. Ball<\/a> and Brittany Pagnotta<\/a>, originally published in Law360<\/em>, please visit the firm website<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" On June 3, the U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division’s Washington, D.C., office filed a statement of interest in a relator’s action, arguing that “[c]onduct giving rise to a regulatory violation can also give rise to” False Claims Act liability. The case is U.S. ex rel. Patricia Crocano v. Trividia Health Inc., before the\u00a0U.S. District … <\/p>\n