Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-4rdrl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-28T13:07:47.969Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

General Release Signed by Qui Tam Relator Does Not Bar Later Suits By Other Relators Alleging the Same Fraud – United States ex rel. May v. Purdue Pharma L.P.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 January 2021

Hannah Fine
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Recent Case Developments
Information
American Journal of Law & Medicine , Volume 40 , Issue 1 , March 2014 , pp. 175 - 177
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics and Boston University 2014

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 737 F.3d 908 (4th Cir. 2013).

2 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729-3733 (2012).

3 May, 737 F.3d at 910.

4 See generally U.S. Dep't of Justice, The False Claims Act: A Primer, http://www.justice.gov/civil/frauds/FCA_primer.html (last visited Jan. 12, 2014); see also 31 U.S.C. § 3729 (enumerating acts that constitute false claims).

5 See 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)-(d).

6 Id. § 3730(b)(5).

7 Id. § 3730(e)(4)(A).

8 See United States ex rel. Radcliffe v. Purdue Pharma L.P., 600 F.3d 319, 321-22 (4th Cir. 2010).

9 Id. at 324.

10 See United States ex rel. Radcliffe v. Purdue Pharma L.P., 582 F. Supp. 2d 766, 767 (W.D. Va. 2008); see also Fed R. Civ. P. 9(b).

11 Radcliffe, 600 F.3d at 329.

12 Id. at 329 n.8.

13 United States ex rel. May v. Purdue Pharma L.P., 737 F.3d 908, 911 (4th Cir. 2013).

14 United States ex rel. Radcliffe v. Purdue Pharma L.P., No. 5:10-CV-01423, 2012 WL 4056720, at *4 (S.D. W.Va. Sep. 14, 2012).

15 Id. at *5-7.

16 May, 737 F.3d at 912. The court noted that the requirements of res judicata are “(1) a final judgment on the merits in a prior suit; (2) an identity of the cause of action in both the earlier and the later suit; and (3) an identity of parties or their privies in the two suits.” Id. (quoting Clodfelter v. Republic of Sudan, 720 F.3d 199, 210 (4th Cir. 2013)). The contested issue in this case was whether a judgment had been made on the merits.

17 May, 737 F.3d at 910.

18 Id. at 913.

19 Id.

20 Id. at 913-14 (citing United States ex rel. Radcliffe v. Purdue Pharma L.P., 600 F.3d 319, 329 n.8 (4th Cir. 2010)).

21 May, 737 F.3d at 914; Fed R. Civ. P. 11.

22 31 U.S.C. § 3730(e)(4)(A) (2012).

23 May, 737 F.3d at 914-15.

24 Id. at 918.

25 Id. at 920.

26 See United States ex rel. Radcliffe v. Purdue Pharma L.P., 600 F.3d 319, 331-32 (4th Cir. 2010).

27 Rhoad, Robert T. & Fornataro, Matthew T., Whistling While They Work: Limiting Exposure in the Face of the PPACA's Invitation to Employee Whistleblower Lawsuits, 22 HEALTH LAWYER 19, 20 (2010)Google Scholar (citing 31 U.S.C. § 3730(d)(1) & (2)).

28 Rhoad & Fornataro, supra note 27, at 24.

29 See, e.g., Radcliffe, 600 F.3d at 325; Ritchie v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 558 F.3d 1161, 1169 (10th Cir. 2009); United States ex rel. Hall v. Teledyne Wah Chang Albany, 104 F.3d 230, 233 (9th Cir. 1997).

30 Rhoad & Fornataro, supra note 27, at 24.

31 Id.

32 Id.

33 See id. at 25.

34 Karen F. Green et al., False Claims Act Development, WILMERHALE (April 2, 2010), http://www.wilmerhale.com/pages/publicationsandnewsdetail.aspx?NewsPubId=89367.