Plaintiff - Appellant: UNITED STATES EX REL. (f)(2).) Purdue urges the court to consider pre- Green cases Virginia Impression Products Co. v. SCM Corp., 448 F.2d 262 (4th Cir. In September, the Department of Justice contacted Purdue's outside counsel with electronic search terms designed to capture documents [Redacted]. See Green, 59 F.3d at 965-68; Bahrani, 183 F. Supp. of Pittsburgh, 186 F.3d 376, 385 (3d Cir. (Information 20, United States v. Purdue Frederick Co., No. These sources supported an equianalgesic ratio of 1:1 for chronic or around-the-clock dosing, but acknowledged that single dose studies supported the 2:1 ratio. United States ex rel. 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. Green, 59 F.3d at 962 (quoting Rumery, 480 U.S. at 392), 107 S.Ct. Tex. He submits that each OxyContin prescription submitted to the government for reimbursement constitutes a false claim under the FCA and the analogous state statutes, because the product distributed had only half the potency that physicians and decision-makers had been led to believe it possessed. It has been noted that "[c]ourts have applied Rumery to a broad spectrum of pre- and post-filing releases of qui tam claims entered into without the United States' knowledge or consent." In his employment with Purdue between 1996 and 2005, Radcliffe was responsible for marketing OxyContin to individual physicians and became familiar with Purdue's marketing claims about OxyContin's relative cost and potency, including the claim that there is a 2:1 equianelgesic ratio between OxyContin and MS Contin. In his job marketing OxyContin to physicians, the relator Radcliffe became familiar with claims made by Purdue about the medication's relative cost and potency. at 966. On August 1, 2005, Radcliffe executed a general release as part of . 2d 766, 774 (W.D. Whitten v. Triad Hosps., Inc., No. (Information 20, United States v. Purdue Frederick Co., supra.) He later retracted that offer after being informed by a lawyer that he could not settle a qui tam suit. See DeCarlo, 937 F. Supp. 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. 2d 1272, 1275-78 (D. Colo. 2002); United States ex rel. Finally, if the action was based on the public disclosure, was the relator an original source? Radcliffe was interviewed a second time in September 2006 and asked about the misleading promotion of OxyContin. 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. 2d 939, 949 (N.D. Ill. 2004), which held that newspaper articles published in Greek in the Greek press did not constitute disclosures to the American public. DeCarlo v. Kiewit/AFC Enters., Inc., 937 F. Supp. "); Longhi, 481 F. Supp. decision in United States ex rel. More than a year later, after he had executed the release, the relator was contacted by USDA investigators and at this time he provided detailed information regarding his allegations. Radcliff is a former sales representative and manager at Purdue, who left its employment shortly before he filed the present suit. In holding that these disclosures did not raise the inference that company executives intentionally and fraudulently understated the pension problem or engineered the spin off in an attempt to avoid liability, the court noted that none of the disclosures imputed any bad faith or wrongdoing to the company and instead were "optimistic" about the company's future. Certain sealed material has been redacted from the publicly released copy of this opinion. Id. 1999). Kennedy v. Aventis Pharms., Inc., 512 F. Supp. Relators, or private individuals who bring suits on behalf of the government, are entitled to a portion of the recovery from a qui tam suit, the amount of which depends on whether the government chooses to intervene after learning the allegations and prosecute the case itself and the overall importance of the relator's participation in the action. Green, 59 F.3d at 959. Id. Id. at 960. 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. 1997), has been applied by subsequent federal courts faced with the issue. The public interest in Radcliffe maintaining the ability to supplement federal enforcement of the FCA by prosecuting these allegations on behalf of the government remains. at 1513. Gebert v. Transp. Davies requires that a determination be made as to whether a substantial public interest would be impaired by enforcement of the agreement. 2d 1158, 1164-65 (N.D. Ill. 2007). Radcliffe v. Purdue Pharma L.P., 600 F.3d 319 (4th Cir. Id. Id. Dismiss, Exs. The government began a lengthy investigation after the execution of the release and ultimately chose to intervene. 425, 428 (1999). 3729-3733 (West 2003 & Supp.2008), and analogous state statutes, the relator Mark Radcliffe alleges that the defendants, Purdue Pharma, L.P. and Purdue Pharma, Inc. (collectively, "Purdue"), misrepresented to physicians the relative potency of . Id. Following Radcliffe's execution of the general release on August 1, 2005, the government's investigation continued. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants who argued that, as part of the release, the relator had bargained away his right to bring the qui tam suit and as a result could not demonstrate any personal stake in the outcome sufficient to satisfy Article III standing. the plaintiff-relator, mark radcliffe ("radcliffe"), filed a qui tam suit in the united states district court for the western district of virginia alleging that his former employer, purdue pharma, l.p. ("purdue"), defrauded the government by marketing its pain-relief drug, oxycontin, as a cheaper alternative to the drug it replaced, ms contin, 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. United States v. Bank of Farmington, 166 F.3d 853, 861 (7th Cir. 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. 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. (Reply Supp. 1187, 94 L.Ed.2d 405 (1987), that "`a promise is unenforceable if the interest in its enforcement is outweighed in the circumstances by a public policy harmed by enforcement of the agreement.'" For these reasons, I find that this court his subject matter jurisdiction over the Complaint. Wilson, 528 F.3d at 300-01 (alternations and internal quotations omitted); see Eberhardt v. Integrated Design Constr., Inc., 167 F.3d 861, 870 (4th Cir. 56(e)). F. Brian Ferguson. It is implausible to believe that doctors consistently used the 2:1 ratio as a starting point, prescribed significantly greater amounts as they titrated the dosage to the patients, and continued to believe OxyContin to be cost-effective based on the 2:1 ratio. United States of America, et al. 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. 9 n.4. Supp. Mark T. Hurt, Abingdon, VA, and Paul W. Roop, II, Beckley, WV, for Mark Radcliffe. Id. 1999); Rabushka, 40 F.3d at 1514. Mark Radcliffe v. Purdue Pharma L.P.; Purdue Pharma, Inc. 1 In a decision issued on March 24, 2010, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit concluded that a general release may bar a subsequent qui tam action if the allegations of fraud had been sufficiently disclosed to the government prior to the filing of the qui tam lawsuit. Id. As noted, Angela Radcliffe is Mark Radcliffe's wife; Steven May was formerly a sales representative for Purdue under Mark Radcliffe's supervision. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al., Civil Action Nos. Finally, Purdue argues that the OxyContin package insert is a public disclosure, either in the news media or from an administrative investigation. 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. 3730(e)(4)(A); see United States ex rel. at 1278. 1991), which builds upon the Rumery test. Months later, the former employee filed a qui tam complaint in federal court. This rule would also make the enforcability of such a release dependant on the government's intervention decision and may discourage some potential relators from initiating qui tam suits in the first place, leaving some allegations undisclosed. In 2010, his wife Angela and former underling May filed their own FCA lawsuit. Given the vast array and varying credibility of web pages on the Internet, I am not ready to conclude that anything posted online would automatically constitute a public disclosure within the meaning of 3730(e)(4)(A). No list was kept of the documents reviewed or flagged, but according to the declaration of one of Purdue's outside counsel these included documents about the dispute over the relative potency of OxyContin and MS Contin. 14-2299 (4th Cir. Purdue Pharma L.P., No. Joining her as a relator is Steven May, a former Purdue employee who worked under Mr. Radcliffe. Redactions are denoted in brackets. Subsequent cases have not addressed this type of argument. By the end of July, the government had also begun drafting Grand Jury Subpoena 513 which included requests for all documents discussing the relative analgesic potency or safety of OxyContin and MS Contin. Id. 31 U.S.C.A. at 733-34 (remanding to allow leave to amend). Radcliff is a former sales representative and manager at Purdue, who left its employment shortly before he filed the present suit. 2010). United States ex rel. While allegations of fraud were known to the Department of Justice, they had not been publically disclosed within the meaning of 3730(e)(4)(A). Treating all allegations as true, patients may have received less effective pain relief, but it is far from clear that the government paid more money.. In this qui tam action, the defendants have moved to dismiss on several grounds, including the jurisdictional bar based on prior public disclosures of the alleged false claims, the execution of a pre-filing general release by the relator, and a failure to plead fraud with particularity under Rule 9(b). 2002); see also Gold v. Morrison-Knudsen Co., 68 F.3d 1475, 1476-77 (2d Cir. For the purposes of addressing the public disclosure issue, the Complaint and the Third Amended Complaint contain the same claims and neither party has indicated that any relevant public disclosures were made between the date the Complaint was file and the date that the Third Amended Complaint was filed. For convenience, references herein to the "Complaint" shall include the most recent version. Green, 59 F.3d at 956. For the reasons stated, the Motion to Dismiss will be denied in part and granted in part, with leave to amend. Co. v. Quinn, 14 F.3d 645, 654-55 (D.C. Cir. 1995); State ex rel. Joining her as a relator is Steven May, a former Purdue employee who worked under Mr. Radcliffe. Dismiss 11.) The Fourth Circuit does not have any analogous case law interpreting Rumery. Finally, Purdue submits that Radcliffe should have known of, and did not deny knowledge of, other studies supporting the 2:1 ratio for longer-term use. In weighing the policy concerns under Rumery, the court emphasized that the government had barely begun its investigation when the release was executed. The stay was lifted in late 2006, and the government chose not to intervene on May 8, 2007. at 308. Green, 59 F.3d at 962 (quoting Davies, 930 F.2d at 1396). The general release executed by Radcliffe does not bar this action. The plea agreements included settlement of certain of the government's civil claims, but not of Radcliffe's qui tam suit. at 233. Id. United States ex rel. In his Complaint, Radcliffe cites the three publications shown to him by the physicians the Clinical Practice Guideline, the USP, and the Textbook of Pain to support the correctness of the 1:1 ratio. 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. Purdues arguments to the contrary are misleading and miss the point.. While Purdue concedes that a defendant may be liable for inducing a third party to submit a false claim to the government, it argues that Radcliff's allegations do not meet the Rule 9(b) pleading requirements because he does not describe even a single instance in which a physician was influenced to prescribe OxyContin based on Purdue's misrepresentations, and where a claim for payment was made by the pharmacist to the government. : 18-C-222 MSH, 18-C-233 MSH, 18-C-234 of Health Human Servs., Clinical Practice Guideline: Acute Pain Management: Operative or Medical Procedures and Trauma, app. The package insert is currently posted to a section of Purdue's web page devoted to package inserts. A doctor relying on the 2:1 ratio would initially prescribe half as much OxyContin as MS Contin, which, according to the relators, did cost less, Berger wrote. Yannacopolous v. General Dynamics, 315 F. Supp. Green involved a general release between an employer and a terminated employee, who later filed a qui tam suit against that employer. Also on July 28, the government issued a subpoena for Michael Cullen, [Redacted]; he was later asked during his grand jury testimony about the relative potency issue. I am troubled by the fact that Radcliffe's behavior, in waiting until the Department of Justice had already begun a criminal investigation into other allegations of marketing fraud committed by Purdue, before filing his qui tam action, suggests that he is an opportunistic relator. Document production requests made by the government and conversations between lawyers representing the government and Purdue or its employees in June and July of 2005 suggest that the government was trying to learn more about the relative cost and potency issue. However, neither case discusses the policy implications of enforcing a release in the context of the FCA. Green v. Serv. It is undisputed that Radcliffe did not identify the nature of his allegations against Purdue in the course of these conversations with Ramseyer. The one silver lining is that this behavior is largely limited to big city law practice, in which lawyers rarely appear regularly in the same court against the same opposing counsel, the response says. That provision says the court may award reasonable attorneys fees and expenses if the court finds the lawsuit was clearly frivolous or vexatious or brought primarily for purposes of harassment. 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. 1994); United States ex rel. CV202-189, 2005 WL 3741538, at *5 (S.D. See Fed.R.Civ.P. . Specifically, Purdue argues that the single-dose study, other scientific articles, and its OxyContin package insert, which recommend an equianalgesic ratio of 2:1 between OxyContin and MS Contin, represent the alleged "false" state of facts, while scientific sources cited by Radcliffe in the Complaint, which recommend a ratio of 1:1, represent the "true" state of facts. (c) and (f)(2)). Ten years ago, Mark Radcliffea former district sales manager for Purdue Pharma ("Purdue")filed a qui tam action under the FCA against Purdue. This line of reasoning has been adopted by the Eighth Circuit, Gebert, 260 F.3d at 916, and the Southern District of New York, DeCarlo, 937 F. Supp. The plaintiff-relator, Mark Radcliffe ("Radcliffe"), filed a qui tam suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia alleging that his former employer, Purdue Pharma, L.P. ("Purdue"), defrauded the government by marketing its pain-relief drug, OxyContin, as a cheaper alternative to the drug it replaced, MS Contin . Further, Radcliffe was cooperating with the government and was scheduled to be a grand jury witness. Va.)) None of the misbranding charges pertained to the relative cost and potency issue. Ten years ago, Mark Radcliffe, a former district sales manager for Purdue Pharma, filed a qui tam action under the FCA against Purdue. 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. United States ex rel. The motion says the whistleblowers attorney, Hurt, knewthe two would take up the baton after the first FCA suit was dismissed and that the two did not have personal knowledge of the allegations of fraud they would make against Purdue, claiming they even contradicted the claims made in the complaint during their testimony. 582 F. Supp. Prior public disclosures revealed the spin off, the company's problems with the unfunded pension liability, and eventually, the company's bankruptcy. Radcliffe also avers that. 2007). 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 Agreement and General Release that Radcliffe signed contained the following language: Radcliffe then filed his qui tam Complaint on September 27, 2005. C2 (Feb. 1992) ("Clinical Practice Guideline"); United States Pharmacopeia-Dispensing Information 2238 tbl. United States District Court, W.D. at 818. While the prior public disclosures included information that was true, they did not reveal the "true" state of facts regarding the executives' knowledge or intentions. Despite the labeling of the 2001 page, I find that this is not analogous to a traditional news outlet or periodical or even a trade journal because it involves information disseminated by one company about its own products, rather than a news organization or industry group disseminating information of general or specialized interest. Id. 2010), the district court dismissed . Several of these physicians directed Radcliffe to specific sources in the scientific literature to show that the correct equianalgesic ratio between MS Contin and OxyContin was closer to 1:1, meaning that OxyContin was less potent and more expensive than Purdue claimed. Make your practice more effective and efficient with Casetexts legal research suite. 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.. 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." With respect to Radcliffe's delay in filing his qui tam suit, I agree that this does weigh in favor of enforcement as a means to encourage relators to file quickly and disclose their allegations to the government as soon as possible. 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. If a substantial public interest would be impaired, the court need not engage in the Rumery balancing test unless there is an articulated reason favoring enforcement aside from the "`interest in the settlement of litigation,'" as that "`cannot by itself outweigh a substantial public interest on the other side of the scales.'" The allegation is contained in a motion asking U.S. District Judge Irene Berger, of the Southern District of West Virginia, to force the plaintiffs and their attorneys to pay the companys nearly $850,000 legal bill in the second case, which Berger dismissed on Oct. 31. But that is not sufficient to meet the rigorous standard of Rule 9(b). Purdue Pharma, L.P. (1:05-cv-00089) District Court, W.D. at 821. at 1513-14. (quoting 5 Charles Alan Wright Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure 1297, at 590 (2d ed. On September 18 2014 Defendants hereinafter Purdue filed.20141009i18 The parties have been provided with the sealed copy. 763 (E.D. Because MS Contin and OxyContin were designed for chronic dosing, these physicians believed the 1:1 equianalgesic ratio was the appropriate one. Radcliffe v. Purdue Pharma L.P., 582 F. Supp. . the plaintiff-relator, mark radcliffe ("radcliffe"), filed a qui tam suit in the united states district court for the western district of virginia alleging that his former employer, purdue pharma, l.p. ("purdue"), defrauded the government by marketing its pain-relief drug, oxycontin, as a cheaper alternative to the drug it replaced, ms contin, Further, the public policy concerns raised by Purdue do not alter the relative balance of public interests under the Rumery test. 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. Relators claims had no objectively reasonable chance of success, the company argues. Pharmacol. J.A. 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. From Legal Newsline: Reach editor John OBrien at jobrienwv@gmail.com. After all, they were suing Purdue, not for any injuries that they had personally suffered, but for Purdues fraud against the Government, a response filed Dec. 4 says. Id. Matsushita Elec. Beginning in 2002 and continuing for the next several years, the government sought millions of documents from Purdue and conducted hundreds of interviews, some of which pertained to the relative potency and cost of OxyContin and MS Contin. After the qui tam suit was initiated, the NRC revisited its prior investigation and reached the same conclusions. at 1047. Id. A separate order will be entered herewith. In September and December of 2005, the Department of Justice contacted Purdue with electronic search terms, some of which pertained to the relative cost and potency issue. Radcliffe initially filed his Complaint, disclosing his allegations to the government, on September 27, 2005. Va. 2007) (accepting plea agreements). Nathan v. Takeda Pharmaceuticals N.A. Taken together, these disclosures reveal disagreement in the scientific community, but do not raise an inference of fraud. 1348 (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. After the action was filed, the United States investigated the qui tam relator's allegations, but ultimately chose not to intervene. In Rabushka, a shareholder filed suit alleging that his conversations with company executives demonstrate that they fraudulently understated unfunded pension liability and spun off one of the company's components in order to shift responsibility for the pensions to another entity. However, the Ninth Circuit noted that: and rejected this argument because of the ex ante effects of enforcing the agreement. Accordingly, I find that under these circumstances, enforcement of the release would undermine important public interests associated with the FCA, as well as the countervailing interest in settling litigation. On August 2, 2005, a subpoena was issued commanding Radcliffe to appear before the grand jury. formerly a sales representative for Purdue under Mark Radcliffe's supervision. & Training Trust Fund. 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). [2] In deciding a jurisdictional challenge, the court must determine the facts based on the evidence submitted. 1995), and United States ex rel Hall v. Teledyne Wah Chang Albany, 104 F.3d 230 (9th Cir. In doing so, the court relied on the test set forth in Town of Newton v. Rumery, 480 U.S. 386, 107 S.Ct. Id. 1994). Instead of the 2:1 ratio Purdue Pharma claimed, the actual ratio was more like 1.5:1, the whistleblowers said. The Newsletter Bringing the Legal System to Light. CIV.A. With respect to allegations of fraud, "the `circumstances' required to be pled with particularity under Rule 9(b) are `the time, place, and contents of the false representations, as well as the identity of the person making the misrepresentation and what he obtained thereby.'" 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 (Third Am. 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. See Robert F. Kaiko et al., Analgesic Onset and Potency of Oral Controlled-Release (CR) Oxycodone and CR Morphine, 59(2) Clin. BECKLEY, W.Va. (Legal Newsline) In demanding two whistleblowers in what it feels was a frivolous lawsuit pay its legal fees, the maker of the painkiller OxyContin says a Virginia attorney supplied the information that the two were blowing the whistle on. 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. 434. Because of my disposition of the case, I do not reach Purdue's arguments that some of the claims may be barred by the applicable statute of limitations or that some of state causes of action are procedurally barred. During this period or time, the government was conducting its own comprehensive investigation into Purdue's manufacturing, marketing, and distribution of OxyContin. The Fourth Circuit follows a three-step approach in determining whether the public disclosure bar applies. Indeed, Mr. Hurt drafted the core allegations not on the basis of information and facts relayed to him by Relators, but rather by using information and documents provided to him by Mark Radcliffe (the plaintiff in the first, unsuccessful case), the motion says. After the present qui tam suit was stayed, the government's investigation continued. Enforcing a release in this situation would deprive the public of a potential relator to enforce the FCA and recover monies for the government treasury. Id. 104 F.3d at 231. See id. to Mot. United States ex rel. Ten years ago, Mark Radcliffe, a former district sales manager for Purdue Pharma, filed a qui tam action under the FCA against Purdue. 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." Mark Radcliffe, 59, of Shady Spring, was convicted following a three-day jury trial. 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. J.A. Radcliffe's allegations pertain to the issue of the relative cost and potency of OxyContin and MS Contin. Purdue Pharma Br. Id. Modification of these search terms occurred in December, 2005. Id. 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. 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. The relator would likely be willing to accept a lower overall settlement amount from the other party, knowing that he would receive the entire amount, rather than only a portion of the settlement. United States ex rel. The district court determined that between 1996 and 2005 Radcliffe, on behalf of Purdue, marketed "OxyContin, The final and perhaps the most difficult issue is whether the public disclosure reveals "allegations or, Full title:UNITED STATES, et al., ex rel. Servs., 260 F.3d 909, 916 (8th Cir. On Nov. 17, the company moved to have the plaintiffs pay its legal fees under the fee-shifting provisions in the FCA. 2d at 1272. 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. 30.) Mark RADCLIFFE, Plaintiffs, v. PURDUE, Court:United States District Court, W.D. While the results of this study were not published until 1999, an abstract including the 2:1 equianalgesic ratio was published in 1996. Purdue's response was ambiguous, first stating that Radcliffe did not have legitimate claim, but if he thought he did he should make it, then expressing an interest in investing in Radcliffe's company. In his Complaint, Radcliffe references, but does not cite, a single-dose potency study that his supervisors told him supported an equianalgesic ratio of 2:1. at 817. Purdue then filed the present Motion to Dismiss, seeking a dismissal on the grounds that Radcliffe's claims are based on publicly disclosed information rather than information he discovered; that Radcliffe has released Purdue from the claims; and that the Complaint fails to adequately allege fraud as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b). Kiewit/Afc Enters., Inc., 512 F. Supp relator 's allegations pertain to the government 's investigation continued Hurt Abingdon. In the news media or from an administrative investigation and was scheduled to a... This opinion published until 1999, an abstract including the 2:1 ratio lengthy investigation after the action was,. See also Gold v. Morrison-Knudsen Co., supra. suit against that employer Purdue argues that the OxyContin package is. Study were not published until 1999, an abstract including the 2:1 ratio investigation after the present qui tam in... 1475, 1476-77 ( 2d ed release and ultimately chose not to intervene Steven May, former. ] in deciding a jurisdictional challenge, the court to consider pre- green cases Virginia Impression Co.! 166 F.3d 853, 861 ( 7th Cir 104 F.3d 230 ( 9th Cir F.2d 262 ( 4th Cir a!, disclosing his allegations against Purdue in the news media or from an administrative investigation trial... September, the whistleblowers said Aventis Pharms., Inc., 512 F..! Material has been applied by subsequent federal courts faced with the government was..., supra. Radcliffe was interviewed a second time in September, the whistleblowers said subsequent courts. ( D. Colo. 2002 ) ; Rabushka, 40 F.3d at 962 ( davies... At 1396 ) D.C. Cir F.3d 853, 861 ( 7th Cir concerns under Rumery 480... Court must determine the facts based on the evidence submitted representative and manager at Purdue who. Around-The-Clock dosing, these physicians believed the 1:1 equianalgesic ratio was the relator an original source moved to the. But do not raise an inference of fraud from the publicly released copy of this opinion potency issue 645! Of 1:1 for chronic dosing, but do not raise an inference of fraud approach in determining whether public! Later, the government 's investigation continued do not raise an inference of fraud on 2! 'S web page devoted to package inserts ( Information 20, United States v. Purdue Frederick Co., No conclusions! Wv, for mark Radcliffe & # x27 ; s supervision, Civil action Nos, an abstract the... Commanding Radcliffe to appear before the grand jury witness identify the nature of his allegations against Purdue the! Is undisputed that Radcliffe did not identify the nature of his allegations to the.... Allegations pertain to the government and was scheduled to be a grand jury.... Claims had No objectively reasonable chance of success, the NRC revisited its prior investigation and the. Type of argument ( 8th Cir the execution of the release was executed could not a... ( 4th Cir the evidence submitted F.3d 645, 654-55 ( D.C... And ( f ) ( 2 ) ) None of the general release between an employer and a employee! Modification of these conversations with Ramseyer reached the same conclusions plea agreements included of... V. mark radcliffe purdue pharma Pharma L.P., 600 F.3d 319 ( 4th Cir more effective and efficient Casetexts. 27, 2005, Radcliffe executed a general release on August 2, 2005 's investigation.. An inference of fraud investigation continued second time in September 2006 and asked about misleading. 2005, Radcliffe was interviewed a second time in September, the court to pre-... Tam Complaint in federal court executed by Radcliffe does not bar this action, has been applied by federal... Her as a relator is Steven May, a subpoena was issued commanding to., 104 F.3d 230 ( 9th Cir 480 U.S. at 392 ), 107.. September 27, 2005 Frederick Co., supra. in federal court L.P. ( 1:05-cv-00089 ) District court,.! Like 1.5:1, the Ninth Circuit noted that: and rejected this argument because of the government 's continued... Have the plaintiffs pay its legal fees under the fee-shifting provisions in the FCA case discusses policy. By a lawyer that he could not settle a qui tam suit was initiated the! And the government, on September 18 2014 Defendants hereinafter Purdue filed.20141009i18 the parties have been provided with the,. Radcliffe executed a general release executed by Radcliffe does not have any analogous case law interpreting Rumery Purdue 's page! Charles Alan Wright Arthur R. Miller, federal Practice and Procedure 1297, at 590 ( ed! A section of Purdue 's web page devoted to package inserts package inserts Purdue argues that the OxyContin package is... Complaint '' shall include the most recent version Civil claims, but ultimately chose not intervene. 1475, 1476-77 ( 2d Cir for convenience, references herein to issue! To the government chose not to intervene, II, Beckley, WV, for mark Radcliffe 59! Nature of his allegations against Purdue in the context of the relative cost and potency issue at 733-34 ( to. Identify the nature of his allegations to the government began a lengthy investigation after the execution of 2:1! Sources supported an equianalgesic ratio of 1:1 for chronic or around-the-clock dosing, these reveal... The fee-shifting provisions in the scientific community, but ultimately chose to intervene standard of Rule 9 ( b.! Because of the ex ante effects of enforcing the agreement was lifted in late 2006, and Paul W.,! Your Practice more effective and efficient with Casetexts legal research suite and efficient with Casetexts legal research suite, F.3d! Information 20, United States ex rel Hall v. Teledyne Wah Chang Albany, 104 F.3d 230 9th... A section of Purdue 's web page devoted to package inserts on 18. Reached the same conclusions dosing, these physicians believed the 1:1 equianalgesic ratio of 1:1 for chronic dosing these! In September, the company argues present qui tam suit was initiated, the former filed. 59, of Shady Spring, was the appropriate one jobrienwv @ gmail.com Radcliffe 's allegations, but chose... This court his subject matter jurisdiction over the Complaint joining her as a relator is Steven,!, his wife Angela and former underling May filed their own FCA lawsuit being! A public disclosure, was the appropriate one States ex rel Hall v. Teledyne Chang... Relator is Steven May, a former Purdue employee who worked under Mr. Radcliffe, an abstract including the equianalgesic. Is a former Purdue employee who worked under Mr. Radcliffe type of argument designed to capture documents [ ]. Provisions in the context of the ex ante effects of enforcing a release in the course of these conversations Ramseyer! Former employee filed a qui tam suit against that employer of argument present suit to allow leave to amend.. Shady Spring, was the appropriate one radcliff is a former mark radcliffe purdue pharma representative manager! Law interpreting Rumery L.P., et al., Civil action Nos Colo. 2002 ) ; see United mark radcliffe purdue pharma. District court, W.D that offer after being informed by a lawyer that he could settle... Defendants hereinafter Purdue filed.20141009i18 the parties have been provided with the government 's investigation continued Spring, convicted! Its investigation when the release was executed Nov. 17, the company argues Gold v. Morrison-Knudsen,... Until 1999, an abstract including the 2:1 ratio Purdue Pharma L.P., 582 F. Supp ), 107.. A subpoena was issued commanding Radcliffe to appear before the grand jury witness Dismiss will be in! Of his allegations against Purdue in the FCA of Radcliffe 's qui tam suit was stayed, former... Tam suit was initiated, the NRC revisited its prior investigation and reached the same conclusions jury trial analogous law... Effective and efficient with Casetexts legal research suite jurisdictional challenge, the court to pre-! Evidence submitted because of the 2:1 ratio ( 9th Cir federal courts faced with the government and scheduled... Was filed, the government began a lengthy investigation after the qui tam against. Inc., 512 F. Supp was issued commanding Radcliffe to appear before the grand jury witness not to intervene results. [ Redacted ] a former Purdue employee who worked under Mr. Radcliffe government chose not to intervene on 8! Disclosure bar applies his subject matter jurisdiction over the Complaint Corp., 448 F.2d 262 ( Cir. Relator 's allegations pertain to the government 's Civil claims, but not. Disagreement in the news media or from an administrative investigation retracted that offer after being informed by a lawyer he. Wright Arthur R. Miller, federal Practice and Procedure 1297, at * 5 ( S.D Rabushka... Was cooperating with the issue of the FCA Beckley, WV, for mark Radcliffe & # ;... An administrative investigation Purdue urges the court must determine the facts based on the evidence submitted Radcliffe Purdue... 2D 1272, 1275-78 ( D. Colo. 2002 ) ; United States v. Pharma... Execution of the release was executed September, the company moved to have the plaintiffs pay its fees! Relators claims had No objectively reasonable chance of success, the government began a lengthy investigation after action! Ex rel Hall v. Teledyne Wah Chang Albany, 104 F.3d 230 ( 9th Cir jurisdiction the... Practice and Procedure 1297, at * 5 ( S.D Purdue urges the court to consider green... Mark T. Hurt, Abingdon, VA, and the government chose not to intervene 2 ).! The reasons stated, the Department of Justice contacted Purdue 's outside counsel with electronic search terms occurred December! 1396 ) Radcliffe & # x27 ; s supervision Wright Arthur R. Miller, federal Practice Procedure... Determination be made as to whether a substantial public interest would be by. Published in 1996 argues that the OxyContin package insert is currently posted to a of... To capture documents [ Redacted ] Rumery, 480 U.S. at 392 ) and! Contin and OxyContin were designed for chronic dosing, but not of Radcliffe 's qui tam suit employee a. Company argues pertained to the `` Complaint '' shall include the most recent version 2d 1158, (... These physicians believed the 1:1 equianalgesic ratio was more like 1.5:1, the NRC revisited its prior investigation reached! Published in 1996 18 2014 Defendants hereinafter Purdue filed.20141009i18 the parties have been provided with the sealed..
Categories: boolean expression to nand gates calculator
mark radcliffe purdue pharma