Stay ahead of developments in federal and state health care law, regulation and transactions with timely, expert news and analysis.
Duke University and two Duke researchers will have to face claims they defrauded the government on NIH research grants ( United States ex rel. Thomas v. Duke Univ. , M.D.N.C., No. 1:17-cv-00276-CCE-JLW, order 4/25/17 ).
Former Duke University employee Joseph M. Thomas sufficiently stated claims against Duke and the researchers, Judge Catherine C. Eagles of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina said in an April 25 order refusing the defendants’ bid to dismiss the suit.
The ruling means the case will proceed and Duke could be on the hook for $600 million as well as civil penalties for each false claim. The medical research community is closely watching the case because a whistle-blower win here could lead to a slew of similar suits being filed against research institutions.
Thomas sued the university under the False Claims Act (FCA), alleging former colleague Erin N. Potts-Kant, her supervisor, William Michael Foster, and the university falsified data to obtain more than 60 research grants totaling $200 million in funding from the National Institutes of Health and the Environmental Protection Agency.
The FCA is the primary civil remedy to redress false claims for funds and property under government programs and contracts. Whistle-blowers have increasingly been using the statute to bring research misconduct cases.
Thomas asked that Duke reimburse the U.S. government triple the amount of damages plus civil penalties for each false claim.
The case could have a huge impact on medical research cases if Thomas ultimately prevails.
“A significant victory by the whistle-blower here, although still a long way off, could create publicity and awareness of how other researchers might be able to use the False Claims Act going forward when they have similar allegations of misconduct in federally-funded research,” Callan G. Stein, a defense lawyer with Donoghue Barrett & Singal in Boston, told Bloomberg BNA May 1.
Stein’s litigation practice focuses on white-collar criminal defense, corporate and commercial civil litigation, health-care litigation, professional licensing matters, and research misconduct cases.
“A victory by the whistle-blower in this case may very well encourage more researchers to become so-called whistle-blowers and report perceived misconduct in connection with federal grants,” Stein said.
“Individual whistle-blowers who are successful under the False Claims Act stand to reap significant financial compensation, which could create an obvious financial incentive for researchers to report misconduct, especially if the misconduct is widespread and occurred over a lengthy period of time,” he said.
Meanwhile, even if research institutions win these cases, “significant expense may result during the discovery phase of such lawsuits,” Geoffrey M. Raux with Foley & Lardner LLP in Boston told Bloomberg BNA May 1. Raux’s practice concentrates on complex commercial and health care litigation matters, internal investigations, and government compliance.
The court’s order refusing to dismiss the case “reinforces the importance of maintaining a strong compliance program aimed at uncovering potential misconduct, and taking a proactive approach, where possible, in disclosing material issues to the government prior to the filing of a whistleblower lawsuit,” Raux added. “Universities looking to protect themselves against cases like this would be wise to take measures aimed at preventing all research misconduct, but in particular widespread fraud like that which is alleged here,” Stein said.
“Universities could also institute stricter procedures for submitting federal grants, provide more robust education concerning the importance of research integrity to both established and new researchers, and possibly even increase the monitoring of its researchers by hiring individuals to examine and supervise research or by incentivizing existing personnel to monitor each other,” he said.
Bloomberg BNA contacted the law firms representing the whistle-blower and Duke but the firms declined to comment on the case.
A pretrial hearing in the case is scheduled for June 21.
The case was originally filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia in 2013, but in 2016, that court granted Duke’s request to transfer the case to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina.
Thomas was represented by Gentry Locke Rakes & Moore, Roanoke, Va., and Brooks Pierce McLendon Humphrey & Leonard in Greensboro, N.C.Duke was represented by Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP, Washington and Woods Rogers PLC in Roanoke, Va.
Potts-Kant’s representation included Parry Tyndall White in Chapel Hill, N.C. Foster’s representation includes Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP in Charlotte, N.C.
To contact the reporter on this story: Dana A. Elfin in Washington at email@example.com
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Brian Broderick at firstname.lastname@example.org
The order in the case is at http://src.bna.com/onU.
Copyright © 2017 The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
All Bloomberg BNA treatises are available on standing order, which ensures you will always receive the most current edition of the book or supplement of the title you have ordered from Bloomberg BNA’s book division. As soon as a new supplement or edition is published (usually annually) for a title you’ve previously purchased and requested to be placed on standing order, we’ll ship it to you to review for 30 days without any obligation. During this period, you can either (a) honor the invoice and receive a 5% discount (in addition to any other discounts you may qualify for) off the then-current price of the update, plus shipping and handling or (b) return the book(s), in which case, your invoice will be cancelled upon receipt of the book(s). Call us for a prepaid UPS label for your return. It’s as simple and easy as that. Most importantly, standing orders mean you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you’re relying on. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.960.1220 or by sending an email to email@example.com.
Put me on standing order at a 5% discount off list price of all future updates, in addition to any other discounts I may quality for. (Returnable within 30 days.)
Notify me when updates are available (No standing order will be created).
This Bloomberg BNA report is available on standing order, which ensures you will all receive the latest edition. This report is updated annually and we will send you the latest edition once it has been published. By signing up for standing order you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you need. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.372.1033, option 5, or by sending us an email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Put me on standing order
Notify me when new releases are available (no standing order will be created)