Photo of Evan Panich

Evan Panich focuses his practice on white-collar and securities defense matters, health care fraud and abuse matters, and complex civil litigation. Evan defends individuals and public and private companies against various allegations, including violations of the False Claims Act, federal securities laws, and state law anti-fraud and electronic surveillance provisions. He also represents clients in various civil matters, including contract, intellectual property, employment and shareholder disputes. Read Evan Panich's full bio.

How will key trends and developments in health care policy and enforcement impact future litigants? In the latest Health Care Enforcement Quarterly Roundup, we address this question in the context of:

  • Continued interpretations of the landmark Escobar case
  • The latest guidance from US Department of Justice (DOJ) leadership regarding enforcement priorities
  • The uptick in state and federal efforts to combat the opioid crisis
  • Recent court decisions regarding the use of statistical sampling in False Claims Act (FCA) cases
  • A recent increase in regulatory scrutiny of co-location and shared services/equipment arrangements

Materials from our corresponding Q2 webinar can be accessed below.

Click here to read the full issue of the Health Care Enforcement Quarterly Roundup.

Click here to view the archived webinar.

On March 13, 2018, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma dismissed U.S. ex rel. Montalvo v. Native American Servs. Corp. In this case, the relators alleged that the defendants performed substandard work at a US Army ammunition plant. Specifically, the relators alleged that the defendant oversaw a construction project in which a subcontractor was ordered to pour concrete into areas that contained tree roots and stems, which allegedly damaged the quality of the concrete.

At summary judgment, the only evidence offered by the relator was an affidavit setting forth the facts above. The only disputed fact was whether the defendant knew about the tree roots and stems when ordering the subcontractor to pour the concrete. Regardless of that factual dispute, the court concluded that the plaintiff had failed to offer sufficient evidence that the defendant had knowingly caused the submission of false claims and granted summary judgment in the defendant’s favor. Continue Reading District Court Rejects FCA Claim Based on “Substandard” Product

When is a new qui tam lawsuit derivative of a lawsuit in which the government has already intervened? The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit answered that question on December 1, 2017, when it decided United States ex rel. Bennett v. Biotronik, Inc. In doing so, the Ninth Circuit addressed the “government action bar” contained in 31 U.S.C. § 3730(e)(3), which states that a relator may not bring a qui tam suit “based upon allegations or transactions which are the subject of a civil suit . . . in which the Government is already a party.”  31 U.S.C. § 3730(e)(3).

The Ninth Circuit in Bennett was faced with False Claims Act (FCA) claims predicated on facts that had already been the basis of a prior qui tam action against the defendant, Biotronik. The government had since settled and dismissed several (but not all) claims in the prior action. The district court dismissed the relator’s complaint based upon the government action bar. In affirming the district court’s dismissal, the Ninth Circuit reached two relevant conclusions. Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Case Provides New Insight into Government Action Bar

On September 18, 2017, the Tenth Circuit reversed a decision of the US District Court for the District of Utah in United States ex rel. Little v. Triumph Gear Sys., Inc. In doing so, the Tenth Circuit concluded that the False Claims Act’s first-to-file bar extends to situations where relators’ counsel substitute parties prior to the initial complaint even being unsealed.

In this case, relator Joe Blyn brought a qui tam action against a government contractor, alleging that he witnessed instances of fraud. The initial complaint named Blyn and three John Does as relators. The following year, Blyn and the John Does “vanished” from the action with Blyn’s counsel, David Little, instead naming himself, and Kurosh Motaghed as the sole relators.  After the court unsealed the action, Triumph moved to dismiss the amended complaint, arguing that the substitution of parties triggered the “first-to-file” bar, which prevents private parties from intervening in existing actions or filing related actions based on the facts of the underlying action. The district court denied Triumph’s motion to dismiss, ruling that replacing the relator in this manner did not contemplate an “intervention” for purposes of 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)(5).

The Tenth Circuit reversed. The court noted that had Little merely added himself and Motgahed as relators and maintained Blyn as a third relator, such an addition would have merely been an amendment permissible under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15, which would not have triggered the first-to-file bar.  As it happened, however, Blyn did not amend the complaint – Little and Motaghed did.  And because amendments under Rule 15 may only be made by parties, the Tenth Circuit concluded that Little’s and Motaghed’s actions constituted an “intervention.”

Once Blyn was removed from the complaint, the court determined, the district court lacked jurisdiction over the case. Consequently, Little’s subsequent reinstatement of Blyn as a relator was ineffective. This case thus demonstrates the power and breadth of the first-to-file bar, and how defendants can use it effectively to address follow-on complaints.

In US ex rel. Michaels v. Agape Senior Community, the Department of Justice has assented to a $275,000 settlement after having rejected a $2.5 million settlement two years ago (despite declining to intervene in the case). This case garnered substantial attention because the relators sought to employ statistical sampling to establish liability on hundreds of millions of dollars of allegedly false claims to Medicare and Medicaid.

Previously, the Fourth Circuit heard–on interlocutory appeal–argument as to (1) whether statistical sampling could be used to establish liability in a False Claims Act case; and (2) whether the government could veto a False Claims Act settlement in a case in which the government declines to intervene. The Fourth Circuit ruled that the government did possess the authority to veto a settlement in a non-intervened case, and refused to address whether sampling could be used to establish liability. We discussed the Fourth Circuit’s decision here.

Although the Fourth Circuit declined to reach the question of whether False Claims Act plaintiffs can establish liability by using statistical sampling, the presiding district court judge had already concluded that plaintiffs could not do so. Having represented to the court that they could not marshal the resources to establish liability on a claim-by-claim basis, the court granted partial summary judgment on the vast majority of claims at issue. The relators subsequently settled for the value of the claims originally at issue: approximately one percent of the claims at issue in this case and 11 percent of what the relators and defendants previously agreed to.

The Fourth Circuit was to be the first appellate court to address the sampling issue, and this case demonstrates the importance of this issue. Where plaintiffs in this arena may lack sufficient resources to prove their cases on a claim-by-claim basis, the use of statistical sampling makes it far more cost-effective to prosecute their cases. If appellate courts rule on this issue in the future, and in favor of defendants, such rulings will deprive plaintiffs of this potential shortcut. This would appropriately limit plaintiffs’ recovery to claims plaintiffs actually prove are false by a preponderance of the evidence.

On April 28, 2017, the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts dismissed a relator’s qui tam complaint in United States ex rel. Leysock v. Forest Laboratories, Inc. after concluding that the complaint relied on information obtained resulting from deceptive conduct by the relator’s counsel.

In Leysock, the relator alleged that the defendant caused the submission of false claims to Medicare by promoting Forest’s dementia drug, Namenda, for off-label label use. After the United States declined to intervene, Forest filed a motion to dismiss, which the Court denied, largely based upon detailed allegations about eight prescribing physicians who prescribed Namenda for off-label use by Medicare beneficiaries. These allegations, the Court reasoned, were sufficient to satisfy Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b), which in False Claims Act cases typically requires plaintiffs to plead specific allegations regarding the alleged fraud, tying alleged misconduct to the submission of false claims to a government payor.

Through discovery, Forest subsequently learned that relators’ counsel had obtained the information underlying these detailed allegations from a survey conducted by an individual whom relators’ counsel had contracted. This contractor misled the physicians about why he was conducting the survey (not disclosing that he had been retained by the relators in a False Claims Act action) and coaxed the physicians into turning over detailed patient information to the contractor.

In response, the Court concluded that this deception violated Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 4.1(a), which prohibits a lawyer or his agent from knowingly making a false statement of material fact or law to a third person. Consequently, the court concluded, this conduct violated Local Rule 83.6.1 of the United States District Court. As a remedy, the Court struck these allegations, noting that “[the contractor’s] study was conducted solely for the purpose of ensuring that the complaint survived a motion to dismiss,” i.e., to ensure that the complaint satisfied Rule 9(b)’s particularity requirement.

Although the relators’ conduct in this case is unlikely to be repeated in future cases, this case underscores the challenges relators can face in meeting Rule 9(b)’s particularity requirement. These challenges are particularly acute in non-intervened qui tam cases, where the government fails to provide the relator with information about specific false claims that the defendant allegedly submitted or caused to be submitted. Imposing these challenges will continue to chill would-be relators, without firsthand knowledge of wrongdoing, from bringing meritless qui tam cases.

On May 16, 2017, the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued a decision in US ex rel. Badr v. Triple Canopy, Inc. In this case, the government had contracted with a private security company to provide guards at a military airbase in Iraq. Although the applicable contract required the guards to have certain marksmanship scores, the defendant (as alleged by the relator and the government) failed to employ guards with the requisite qualifications.

The Fourth Circuit’s recent decision is the continuation of a years-long battle between the plaintiffs and Triple Canopy over whether the operative complaint adequately pleads violations of the False Claims Act. The Fourth Circuit previously held that the complaint had done so, but after Triple Canopy petitioned the Supreme Court for certiorari, the Supreme Court remanded the case back to Fourth Circuit for reconsideration in light of the high court’s recent Escobar decision.

Continue Reading Fourth Circuit Decision in Triple Canopy Sets up Another Implied Certification Circuit Split

On March 27, 2017, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania dismissed a False Claims Act (FCA) complaint due to failure to satisfy the Supreme Court’s pleading standards for implied certification claims.

In U.S. ex rel. Schimelpfenig v. Dr. Reddy’s Labs. Ltd., the relators alleged that defendant Dr. Reddy’s Labs violated the False Claims Act (FCA) by causing the submission of claims for prescription drugs, which allegedly did not comply with two federal statutes; the Poison Prevention Packaging Act of 1970 (PPPA) and Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (CPSIA). As alleged by the relators, the defendants that manufactured the drugs failed to issue general conformity certificates for the prescription drugs imported and distributed in the United States, in violation of the CPSIA, and failed to test the packaging of the drugs for child-resistance in violation of the PPPA. The relators alleged that as a result of the noncompliance, drug retailers (also joined as defendants) submitted claims to government payers for federal reimbursement of noncompliant drugs. Continue Reading Another District Court Dismisses Improperly Pled Implied Certification Claims

On January 12, 2017, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of a government contractor, where a relator had asserted that the contractor had violated material contractual requirements.

In United States ex rel. Kelly v. SERCO, Inc., defendant SERCO provided project management, engineering design and installation support services for a range of government projects to the US Department of Defense, Navy Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command (SPAWAR). The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) requires that government contracts of this nature contain a clause requiring the contractor to implement a cost and progress tracking tool called an “earned value management system” (EVMS), which is “a project management tool that effectively integrates the project scope of work with cost, schedule and performance elements for optimum project planning and control,” 48 C.F.R. § 2.101, and that this EVMS comply with ANSI-748, a national standard for EVMS. SECRO’s monthly cost reports allegedly did not comply with this standard. After the government declined to intervene, the relator pursued a claim against SERCO arguing that its failure to comply with ANSI-748 amounted to a fraud against the government. Continue Reading Relying on Escobar, Ninth Circuit Tosses Implied Certification Case

On December 6, 2016, the Supreme Court of the United States decided State Farm Fire and Casualty Co. v. United States ex rel. Cori Rigsby and Kerri Rigsby. At issue was whether a qui tam relator’s violation of the seal requirement, 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)(2), requires a court to dismiss the suit. In a unanimous decision, the Court concluded that violation of the seal does not mandate dismissal, affirming a lower court decision to deny the defendant’s motion to dismiss.

Section 3730(b)(2) requires qui tam complaints to be filed under seal for at least 60 days and provides that they shall not be served on the defendants until the court so orders. The purpose of the seal is to give the government time to investigate. In practice, the government often seeks numerous extensions while it investigates the conduct alleged in the relator’s complaint.

Justice Kennedy, writing for the Court, reasoned that the text of the False Claims Act (FCA) makes no mention of a remedy as harsh as dismissal. The Court also noted that the FCA was intended to protect the government’s interests, whereas mandatory dismissal would run contrary to those interests, as it would put an end to potentially meritorious qui tam suits. Although the Court made no definitive ruling as to what sanction would have been appropriate, it did note that dismissal “remains a possible form of relief,” while “[r]emedial tools like monetary penalties or attorney discipline remain available to punish and deter seal violations even when dismissal is not appropriate.”

We previously wrote about this matter, here.