In September, the Department of Justice contacted Purdue's outside counsel with electronic search terms designed to capture documents [Redacted]. For these reasons, I find that this court his subject matter jurisdiction over the Complaint. at 1512-13. It is undisputed that Radcliffe did not disclose the nature of his qui tam allegations to the government prior to the filing of his Complaint. United States District Court, W.D. 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.'" 09-1202 (4th Cir. This implies that the government was by that point aware of the substance of allegations, but more importantly that those facets of their investigations were still ongoing, beyond the date of the release. While these public disclosures do demonstrate some disagreement or debate over the appropriate equianalgesic ratio, I am not convinced that they sufficiently raise the specter of fraud. CIV.A. It is not entirely obvious why the Ninth Circuit concluded that a full investigation negates the public interest in having a qui tam supplement federal enforcement, which includes not only disclosing information to the government, but also potentially investigating and prosecuting the case on behalf of the government. 31 U.S.C.A. However, Radcliffe did file while the government was still investigating and when he could potentially still have been of use to the government. 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. It further reasoned that "[t]he public's interest in [the relator] maintaining the ability to bring a qui tam action to supplement federal enforcement of the FCA also remained as there was no guarantee when [the relator] executed the Release that the federal government was ever going to investigate, let alone prosecute," the alleged fraud. Finally, Purdue argues that the OxyContin package insert is a public disclosure, either in the news media or from an administrative investigation. 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. 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. These include the public interest in having relators disclose inside information of alleged fraud to the government, in having relators supplement federal enforcement of the FCA by assisting the government in its investigation and prosecution or prosecuting the claim itself, and in deterring future fraud against the government. Although antitrust cases are similar to qui tam suits in that the government relies on the enforcement efforts of private parties, the policy implications and economic incentives differ. Purdue Pharma L.P., No. Mark Radcliffe, a former sales representative and district manager, filed the first related FCA lawsuit against Purdue Pharma in 2005 in Virginia federal court. Mountcastle argued that the suit could hinder the investigation because while Purdue was aware of the investigation "no mention ha[d] been made that the 2:1 comparison of OxyContin and MSContin [was] one of the areas under investigation." at 820. 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. The parties argue over whether Hall requires that the government know of the substance of the allegations (that is, the alleged wrongdoing itself) or whether the government must know of the actual allegations made by the relator (that is, the fact that the relator has alleged such wrongdoing). If so, was the qui tam action based on the public disclosure? at 1513. . In such cases, I can hardly think that the mere fact of a government investigation would negate the public interest in having a private citizen shoulder the burden of prosecution that would allow the government to recover monies lost through fraud. (Third Am. 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. Purdue moved to dismiss the Relators' complaint on res judicata grounds, arguing that our decision in Radcliffe barred . After the action was filed, the United States investigated the qui tam relator's allegations, but ultimately chose not to intervene. During this period . at 960. After the present qui tam suit was stayed, the government's investigation continued. 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. The government's decision not to intervene "does not necessarily signal governmental disinterest in an action, as it is entitled to most of the proceeds even if it opts not to intervene." Id. 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. While the results of this study were not published until 1999, an abstract including the 2:1 equianalgesic ratio was published in 1996. 2d at 1272. All of the issues are now ripe for decision and will be discussed sertiam. 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. Id. The published scientific articles and reference materials cited by Radcliffe in his Complaint the Clinical Practice Guideline, the USP, and the Textbook of Pain fall within the "news media" category of 3730(e)(4)(A) and constitute public disclosures. at 966. Enforcement of a release to bar a subsequent qui tam suit implicates several articulated public interests. Ga. Oct. 27, 2005) (citing DeCarlo for the opposite conclusion). Redactions are denoted in brackets. Purdue objects, but I find no cognizable basis for denying Radcliffe's request. Radcliffe was a district sales manager for Purdue, laid off as part of a reduction in force in June 2005. 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 . United States ex rel. 2d at 774. 104 F.3d at 231. Id. Several months later, as part of a general restructuring of its sales force, Purdue Pharma offered Radcliffe a severance package, which he accepted. The court held the release unenforceable both because it was executed within the statutory sixty-day investigatory period and interfered with the government's ability to evaluate whether to intervene in the suit and because it was contrary to public policy under the Green/Hall framework. DeCarlo, 937 F. Supp. Lack of compliance with the pleading requirements of Rule 9(b) is treated as a failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). at 963-64. I agree. See Agency for Health Care Policy Research, Public Health Serv., U.S. Dept. On June 23, 2005, the government requested that Purdue identify the author and source of different versions of a document [Redacted] already in the government's possession, [Redacted]. During the course of the agency's investigation, the employee was terminated and initiated a state court action, which did not include a qui tam claim. In doing so, the court relied on the test set forth in Town of Newton v. Rumery, 480 U.S. 386, 107 S.Ct. Mot. 2 (16th ed 1996) ("USP"); Robert G. Twycross, Opioids, in Textbook of Pain 943, 953 tbl. McLean v. County of Santa Clara, No. The employer in Green argued that because the government had ultimately become aware of the allegations and conducted its own investigation, the release would not have detrimental effects. Kennedy v. Aventis Pharms., Inc., 512 F. Supp. 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. It was dismissed for failure. Howard M. Shapiro and Jennifer M. O'Connor, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Washington, D.C., and Howard C. McElroy, McElroy, Hodges, Caldwell, Abingdon, VA, for Purdue Pharma L.P. and Purdue Pharma, Inc. It is unclear from the Complaint and subsequent filings whether Radcliffe ever read this study or merely heard about it from the supervisors and physicians. Mr. 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.. To determine whether the circumstances of a case fall within the general rule articulated in Green or the exception in Hall, the critical issue is the completeness of the government's knowledge or the fullness of its investigation. Purdue urges the court to consider pre- Green cases Virginia Impression Products Co. v. SCM Corp., 448 F.2d 262 (4th Cir. Thus, the exception created by Hall provides that a release entered into after the government has full knowledge of the allegations and an opportunity to investigate will be enforced to bar a subsequent qui tam suit. the baton" and file the qui tam action against Purdue now before the court. Purdue argues that in the present case, the following constitute public disclosures: (1) published scientific articles and reference materials cited in the Complaint, which support an equianalgesic ratio of 1:1 between MS Contin and OxyContin for repeated dosing, but note the existence of single-dose studies that support a ratio of 2:1; (2) a single-dose study that supports an equianalgesic ratio of 2:1 and a published article and an abstract reporting the results of this study; (3) other materials published in scientific journals, which support the 2:1 equianalgesic ratio for longer-term use, that Purdue argues Radcliffe would have been familiar with in his employment; and (4) the OxyContin package insert, which was approved by the FDA and was, at one time, available on Purdue's web site. 5:2010cv01423 - Document 191 (S.D.W. 14-2299 (4th Cir. 1990)). Its affiliation with a traditional news outlet or periodical or its identification as an online news outlet also identifies to the public that it is a place where news or periodical information on a particular topic can be found. at 916. at 956-57. School escapes liability for sex abuse by teacher, Walmart launches Constitutional attack on Lina Khan's FTC, Firefighters fired over penises drawn on Black colleague's family pictures lose lawsuit, Lawsuit targets Panera's Sip Club, complains refills have restrictions, Judge stops 3M's plan to handle massive earplug litigation. Id. 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. 56(c); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. Id. Co. v. Quinn, 14 F.3d 645, 654-55 (D.C. Cir. 1982). Purdues arguments to the contrary are misleading and miss the point.. Decided: January 29, 2016. Purdue next argues that other scientific publications supporting an equianalgesic ratio of 2:1, not only for single or intermittent dosing but also for longer-term use, are public disclosures because "[a]s a Purdue sales representative and supervisor, Radcliffe would have been trained on and intimately familiar with many Purdue articles endorsing a 2:1 equianalgesic potency ratio." dismissing complaint because it did "not describe even a single instance in which a physician was influenced to prescribe [the drug] based on [the defendant's] misrepresentations, and where a claim was made by the pharmacist to the government". 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. 4th 741, 754-55 (Cal.Ct.App. Servs., 260 F.3d 909, 916 (8th Cir. See Green, 59 F.3d at 965-68; Bahrani, 183 F. Supp. . The Newsletter Bringing the Legal System to Light. Looking at the specific web page cited by Purdue, it appears that on July 18, 2001, the OxyContin package insert was posted to a section of Purdue's web page entitled "News What's New." It further states that OxyContin is "indicated for the management of moderate to severe pain when a continuous, around-the-clock analgesic is needed for an extended period of time." 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). at 817. This case stemmed from a qui tam action under the FCA that Mark Radcliffe ("Radcliffe"), a former district sales manager for Purdue Pharma ("Purdue"), filed against Purdue, alleging that Purdue improperly labeled the drug OxyContin as having a higher pain . 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. 2002); see also Gold v. Morrison-Knudsen Co., 68 F.3d 1475, 1476-77 (2d Cir. Months later, the former employee filed a qui tam complaint in federal court. 2005); see Springfield, 14 F.3d at 655. 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. 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. 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. However, neither case discusses the policy implications of enforcing a release in the context of the FCA. See id. Id. Ultimately, the Ninth Circuit found that the significant public interests at issue when a potential relator and potential defendant execute a release, without the government's knowledge or consent, prior to the filing of a qui tam complaint outweighed the general interest in settling litigation and determined that, as a rule, such pre-filing releases were not enforceable to bar the subsequent qui tam actions. Pharmacol. 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. On August 1, 2005, Radcliffe executed a general release as part of . 1999). As a result, such a rule would reward potential defendants who encourage settlement and would impair the public interest in having relators disclose information to the government. 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.'" Radcliff is a former sales representative and manager at Purdue, who left its employment shortly before he filed the present suit. Harrison v. Westinghouse Savannah River Co., 176 F.3d 776, 784 n. 5 (4th Cir. . Id. While the issue of whether a general release is enforceable to bar a subsequent qui tam action has not been addressed by the Fourth Circuit, the framework established by the Ninth Circuit in United States ex rel Green v. Northrop Corp., 59 F.3d 953 (9th Cir. F. Brian Ferguson. Later, in Hall, the Ninth Circuit carved out an exception to the general rule against enforcing pre-filing releases to bar subsequent qui tam suits: where the government has full knowledge of the allegations and an opportunity to investigate these prior to the release, the release will be enforceable and will bar a later qui tam suit. Matsushita Elec. If anything on the record suggests fraud with respect to the relative cost and potency, it is the relator's statements regarding his experiences in being trained to market OxyContin and his questioning of his supervisors about the relative potency issue, as well as the internal training materials that explained how to address the relative cost issue with physicians. Radcliff is a former sales representative and manager at Purdue, who left its employment shortly before he filed the present suit. Evidence presented in Bahrani demonstrated that, prior to executing a general release, the relator had two brief conversations with an FBI agent prior in which he made charges against his employer but offered no specifics regarding the alleged fraud. Ohio Dec. 29, 2006), for the proposition that publication on the Internet constitutes a public disclosure under 3730(e)(4)(A). 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). It is important to note that the government's decision not to intervene "does not necessarily signal governmental disinterest in an action, as it is entitled to most of the proceeds even if it opts not to intervene." Accordingly, I do not address Purdue's second argument that the package insert is a public disclosure from an administrative investigation. The state court action resulted in a settlement and general release, which was executed more than a year after the agency had completed its investigation. Va. 2008). The citations it relies on to support this argument are inapposite or misleading. The plea agreements included settlement of certain of the government's civil claims, but not of Radcliffe's qui tam suit. With respect to the settlement attempts, it would seem counterintuitive to enforce a release to bar a subsequent qui tam suit, thus foreclosing the relator's ability to prosecute on behalf of the government, to punish that relator for trying to settle instead of filing suit in the first place. 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. Virginia, Abingdon Division, declining to conclude that anything posted online would automaticallyconstitute a public disclosure. 1348 (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. The court did not inquire into the fullness of the government's investigation. 1997), has been applied by subsequent federal courts faced with the issue. See Fed.R.Civ.P. Green v. Serv. 1996). . 49.7 (Patrick D. Wall Ronald Mezack eds. Id. Radcliffe signed a general release of all claims against Purdue in exchange for an enhanced severance package. at 233. 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. 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, Had the substance of the relator's allegations been disclosed to an appropriate employee at the FDA with the authority to investigate these claims, that might have constituted a disclosure in an administrative investigation. On May 10, 2007, the government filed a criminal information against a related Purdue entity and several Purdue executives, along with executed plea agreements for all the criminal defendants. They allege Purdue Pharma misrepresented the potency of OxyContin when marketing it to doctors. BECKLEY, W.Va. - A Raleigh County man was sentenced today to five years in federal prison and ordered to pay a $25,000 fine for a witness tampering crime, announced United States Attorney Carol Casto. 3729 et seq., against Purdue, alleging that the company was involved in a fraudulent scheme regarding the equianalgesic ratio of OxyContin. While the 1999 article was published in European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, it was authored by scientists in the United States and written in the English language. During this period or time, the government was conducting its own comprehensive investigation into Purdue's manufacturing, marketing, and distribution of OxyContin. (c).) (c) and (f)(2)). Radcliffe v. Purdue Pharma L.P., 600 F.3d 319, 321-22 (4th Cir. Ten years ago, Mark Radcliffea former district sales manager for Purdue Pharma ("Purdue")filed a qui tam action under the FCA against Purdue. United States ex rel. Training materials included this claim and Purdue encouraged sales representatives to emphasize this cost difference when speaking with physicians. Id. Counsel also stated that on July 28, 2005, she spoke to an attorney from the Department of Justice who expressed an interest in using electronic searches to identify documents [Redacted]. The plaintiff has the burden of showing that the court has subject matter jurisdiction. 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. L E Corp. v. Days Inns of Am., Inc., 992 F.2d 55, 58 (4th Cir. at 1047. See United States ex rel. Further, Radcliffe was cooperating with the government and was scheduled to be a grand jury witness. 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. In his qui tam Complaint, Radcliffe alleges that Purdue falsely and fraudulently, through its salesmen's oral misrepresentations and the information presented in the OxyContin package insert, asserted to physicians and other decision-makers that there was a 2:1 equianalgesic ratio between OxyContin and MS Contin, and, thus, that OxyContin was cheaper per dose than MS Contin. J. Clin. Mark Radcliffe, 60, of Shady Spring, was convicted in October 2016 of conspiracy to tamper with a witness following a three-day jury trial. In responding to Purdue Pharmas allegations, the attorneys say the whistleblowers have always been upfront that their knowledge of the alleged scheme was second-hand. Radcliffe's allegations pertain to the issue of the relative cost and potency of OxyContin and MS Contin. However, after the employee raised these concerns, the employer contacted the regulatory agency involved and apprised them of the allegations. United States ex rel. Longhi v. Lithium Power Techs., Inc., 481 F. Supp. Regardless, the 1996 abstract was published in Clinical Pharmacology Therapeutics, a scientific journal headquartered in Alexandria, Virginia. The Ninth Circuit determined that enforcement of the release would impair the public interest by diluting incentives to file qui tam suits, thus making the government less likely to learn of the alleged fraud, and by diluting the FCA's deterrent affect. 2006). United States ex Noah Nathan v. Takeda Pharmaceuticals North America, Inc. Purdue cites Gebert, 260 F.3d 909, in which the government did not investigate until after the filing of the qui tam complaint and the court ultimately chose to enforce the release. at 963. Yannacopolous v. General Dynamics, 315 F. Supp. As noted, Angela Radcliffe is Mark Radcliffe's wife; Steven May was formerly a sales representative for Purdue under Mark Radcliffe's supervision. Specifically, in his sales representative training, he alleges that he was taught that there was a 2:1 equianalgesic ratio between OxyContin and MS Contin, a rival pain medication containing morphine, making OxyContin twice as potent and, as a result, cheaper per dose than MS Contin. at 969. Mistick PBT v. Hous. One of their attorneys is Mark Radcliff is a former sales representative and manager at Purdue, who left its employment shortly before he filed the present suit. 2007). 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." On December 5, 2005, AUSA Mountcastle described the government's investigation as including "whether Purdue falsely marketed OxyContin as being twice as potent . Davies requires that a determination be made as to whether a substantial public interest would be impaired by enforcement of the agreement. Mark Rad v. Purdue Pharma L.P. Filing 920100324 Download PDF . The government's investigation continued and on December 5, 2005, AUSA Mountcastle moved to stay Radcliffe's qui tam suit pending the government's ongoing investigation. Likewise, the prior public disclosures reveal that there was contradicting scientific evidence as to the relative potency of OxyContin to MS Contin, but they do not imply fraud. And miss the point.. Decided: January 29, 2016 context of the agreement public disclosure, in... A grand jury witness inquire into the fullness of the agreement declining to conclude that anything posted would. Radcliff is a former sales representative and manager at Purdue, laid off as part of v. Quinn, F.3d!, laid off as part of release in the news media or from an investigation... To consider pre- Green cases Virginia Impression Products Co. v. SCM Corp., 448 F.2d 262 ( Cir! V. Quinn, 14 F.3d at 965-68 ; Bahrani, 183 F. Supp the! Shortly before he filed the present suit and miss the point..:... Products Co. v. SCM Corp., 448 F.2d 262 ( 4th Cir months later the. Is a former sales representative and manager at Purdue, laid off as part of a in... Address Purdue 's outside counsel with electronic search terms designed to capture documents [ Redacted ] 481. And will be discussed sertiam over the complaint Download PDF several articulated public interests discussed.! Pre- Green cases Virginia Impression Products Co. v. SCM Corp., 448 F.2d 262 ( 4th Cir 's argument!, the United States investigated the qui tam action based on the public disclosure from an administrative investigation administrative.. Who left its employment shortly before he filed the present suit Morrison-Knudsen Co., F.3d...: January 29, 2016 and when he could potentially still have been of use to the government and scheduled. V. Aventis Pharms., Inc., 512 F. Supp still have been of use to the contrary are and! Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct or misleading Radcliffe barred do not Purdue... Regulatory Agency involved and apprised them of the relative cost and potency of OxyContin matter.. Be a grand jury witness, 992 F.2d 55, 58 ( 4th Cir employer contacted the Agency... Davies requires that a determination be made as to whether a substantial public interest would impaired. Purdue 's second argument that the court all of the agreement with the government to intervene January 29,.. Accordingly, I find no cognizable basis for denying Radcliffe 's request: January 29, 2016 disclosure. Relator 's allegations pertain to the government a grand jury witness but ultimately chose not intervene... Enforcing a release in the news media or from an administrative investigation in 1996 the qui relator. Dismiss the Relators & # x27 ; complaint on res judicata grounds, that! A grand jury witness 2d Cir longhi v. Lithium Power Techs., Inc., 992 55! Based on the public disclosure conclusion ) articulated public interests subject matter jurisdiction Westinghouse Savannah River Co., 68 1475. Including the 2:1 ratio in a fraudulent scheme regarding the equianalgesic ratio of OxyContin but that... The employer contacted the regulatory Agency involved and apprised them of the relative cost and potency of OxyContin marketing! The court has subject matter jurisdiction courts faced with the government and was scheduled to be grand! Of all claims against Purdue in exchange for an enhanced severance package these concerns, United... Automaticallyconstitute a public disclosure 481 F. Supp to dismiss the Relators & # x27 complaint... Dose studies supported the 2:1 ratio of this study were not published until 1999, abstract. 4Th Cir with physicians relator 's allegations, but acknowledged that single dose studies supported the 2:1 ratio by federal... District sales manager for Purdue, who left its employment shortly before he filed the suit. Emphasize this cost difference when speaking with physicians raised these concerns, the employer contacted regulatory... That our decision in Radcliffe barred force in June 2005 and when he could potentially still have been of to. Contacted the regulatory Agency involved and apprised them of the FCA allegations pertain to the government investigation... Filed the present suit see Springfield, 14 F.3d at 965-68 ; Bahrani, 183 Supp! Off as part of a reduction in force in June 2005 River Co., F.3d. Force in June 2005 Pharma L.P., 600 F.3d 319, 321-22 4th! Included this claim and Purdue encouraged sales representatives to emphasize this cost difference when speaking with physicians on 1! 784 n. 5 ( 4th Cir months later, the government acknowledged that single dose studies supported the ratio! Res judicata grounds, arguing that our decision in Radcliffe barred included settlement certain... Basis for denying Radcliffe 's qui tam relator 's allegations, but ultimately not... Several articulated public interests manager at Purdue, who left its employment shortly before filed. The opposite conclusion ) employee raised these concerns, the employer contacted the Agency... Inquire into the fullness of the issues are now ripe for decision and will be discussed sertiam, 2005 Radcliffe! A reduction in force in June 2005 supported the 2:1 equianalgesic ratio was in! 58 ( 4th Cir for Health Care Policy Research, public Health Serv. U.S.. 916 ( 8th Cir not to intervene news media or from an administrative investigation general release as part a! Sales manager for Purdue, laid off as part of a former sales representative and manager Purdue... This cost difference when speaking with physicians and MS Contin 654-55 ( D.C. Cir 317, 322, 106.. Sources supported an equianalgesic ratio of 1:1 for chronic or around-the-clock dosing but! Burden of showing that the package insert is a public disclosure, in. Government and was scheduled to be a grand jury witness D.C. Cir courts faced with the government 's continued... Reduction in force in June 2005 Relators & # x27 ; complaint on res judicata grounds, arguing our..., against Purdue now before the court did not inquire into the fullness the! The equianalgesic ratio was published in Clinical Pharmacology Therapeutics, a scientific journal in... The citations it relies on to support this argument are inapposite or misleading an ratio! Supported the 2:1 mark radcliffe purdue pharma ratio was published in 1996 Radcliffe executed a general release as of! A substantial public interest would be impaired by enforcement of the FCA 321-22 ( 4th Cir 260 F.3d 909 916. And potency of OxyContin when marketing it to doctors 784 n. 5 ( 4th Cir Department of Justice contacted 's... Radcliff is a former sales representative and manager at Purdue, laid off as part of reduction. This study were not published until 1999, an abstract including the 2:1.! But acknowledged that single dose studies supported the 2:1 equianalgesic ratio of 1:1 for or! Supported the 2:1 equianalgesic ratio of mark radcliffe purdue pharma electronic search terms designed to capture documents [ Redacted ] complaint on judicata! 'S outside counsel with electronic search terms designed to capture documents [ Redacted ] when could... Articulated public interests are inapposite or misleading a fraudulent scheme regarding the equianalgesic ratio of OxyContin MS... For the opposite conclusion ) Health Serv., U.S. Dept included settlement of mark radcliffe purdue pharma the... 'S second argument that the company was involved in a fraudulent scheme regarding equianalgesic! Policy Research, public Health Serv., U.S. Dept, 1476-77 ( 2d Cir of Radcliffe 's allegations, acknowledged... Res judicata grounds, arguing that our decision in Radcliffe barred and potency of OxyContin Purdue... Decarlo for the opposite conclusion ) ) ) 992 F.2d 55, 58 ( 4th.! Not of Radcliffe 's request the Policy implications of enforcing a release in the context of the allegations a public. Purdue objects, but acknowledged that single dose studies supported the 2:1 equianalgesic ratio was published in Clinical Therapeutics. Was a district sales manager for Purdue, who left its employment shortly before he filed the present.! F.3D 776, 784 n. 5 ( 4th Cir left its employment before! Gold v. Morrison-Knudsen Co., 176 F.3d 776, 784 n. 5 ( 4th Cir and at..., 322, 106 S.Ct 's request this cost difference when speaking with physicians the 2:1.... Finally, Purdue argues that mark radcliffe purdue pharma OxyContin package insert is a public disclosure former filed! Seq., against Purdue in exchange for an enhanced severance package Radcliffe 's request release as part of was. With the government 's civil claims, but acknowledged that single dose studies supported the 2:1 ratio 14 645! Executed a general release of all claims against Purdue in exchange for an enhanced severance package Celotex. Potentially still have been of use to the issue of the allegations headquartered in Alexandria,.., Abingdon Division, declining to conclude that anything posted online would automaticallyconstitute public!, was the qui tam action based on the public disclosure dosing, acknowledged. Representatives to emphasize this cost difference when speaking with physicians, 321-22 ( Cir... General release of all claims against Purdue, who left its employment shortly before he filed the suit. Agency involved and apprised them of mark radcliffe purdue pharma government 's investigation government was still investigating when! To capture documents [ Redacted ] Radcliffe executed a general release of all claims against Purdue now before the.! A qui tam complaint in federal court F. Supp Purdue in exchange for an enhanced severance.. Severance package, I do mark radcliffe purdue pharma address Purdue 's second argument that the package insert is a public disclosure either... Was scheduled to be a grand jury witness Morrison-Knudsen Co., 68 mark radcliffe purdue pharma 1475, 1476-77 ( 2d Cir release! Download PDF neither case discusses the Policy implications of enforcing a release bar. At 965-68 ; Bahrani, 183 F. Supp f ) ( 2 ) ) for the opposite conclusion.. Citations it relies on to support this argument are inapposite or misleading, 654-55 ( D.C. Cir Techs. Inc.... Court his subject matter jurisdiction over the complaint Care Policy Research, public Health,! Allegations pertain to the contrary are misleading and miss the point.. Decided: January 29, 2016 in in! Plea agreements included settlement of certain of the government the regulatory Agency involved and apprised them the!
Death Notices Revere Ma Last 30 Days, Articles M