The Eastern District of Pennsylvania recently ruled on a summary judgment motion in a case that has been pending in the federal courts since 2002, involving alleged conduct by the defendant drug manufacturer from 1996–2004, when the pharmaceutical industry and compliance programs were vastly different than they are in 2020. U.S. ex rel. Gohil v. Sanofi U.S. Services Inc’s, No. 02-cv-02964 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 12, 2020). In its ruling, the court adopted an expansive definition of remuneration and a low bar to satisfy the causation element of FCA claims premised on underlying alleged violations of the Anti-Kickback Statute. On this basis, the court is allowing the relator to proceed to trial on allegations that his former employer caused the submission of false claims by paying kickbacks in the form of fees to physicians to participate in advisory boards and speaker programs, educational grants, and meals and gift baskets, while granting summary judgment for the defendant based on allegations related to preceptorships and other alleged kickbacks.
Regulations, Compliance, & Enforcement
Trending Now
The New Rules of Federal Contracting: Redefining DEI Compliance • DOJ Announces FOCUS Initiative to Work with Data Miners Filing Qui Tams • Seventh Circuit Decision Touches Upon FCPA’s Books And Records Provision • The DOJ’s Bulk Sensitive Data Rule and Your Obligation to “Know Your Reporting Requirements” • 5 Structural Barriers Breaking Your Cybersecurity Compliance Framework
Court Permits Qui Tam Focused on Late-90s Conduct to Go Forward, Adopting a Broad Reading of Remuneration and FCA Causation
Fahroni | Shutterstock
Track False Claims Act cases, audit trends, and compliance best practices with our Compliance & Enforcement newsletter, delivering up-to-the-minute intelligence Monday–Saturday — Subscribe here.