Stay ahead of developments in federal and state health care law, regulation and transactions with timely, expert news and analysis.
By Eric Topor
A former medical device salesman won’t get another shot at amending his False Claims Act lawsuit against medical device companies Ev3 Inc. and Microtherapeutics Inc. ( United States ex rel. D’Agostino v. Ev3, Inc. , 2016 BL 429304, 1st Cir., No. 16-1126, 12/23/16 ).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit declined to hand whistle-blower Jeffrey D’Agostino a second lifeline in his FCA lawsuit alleging the companies made false representations to the Food and Drug Administration over the safety of Onyx and Axium, two medical devices used to induce blood clotting during brain surgery. The First Circuit in 2015 revived D’Agostino’s lawsuit against the defendants (both subsidiaries of Medtronic Plc), on the grounds that the trial court’s decision to deny his fourth attempt to amend his complaint was based on too stringent a review standard ( 192 HCDR, 10/5/15 ).
The trial court’s re-review of D’Agostino’s lawsuit returned the same result, holding that further amendment was futile because his proposed allegations simply fell short of FCA pleading standards. The First Circuit affirmed that decision in a Dec. 23 ruling, marking the likely end of D’Agostino’s lawsuit.
The appeals court specifically cited the absence of any adverse government actions taken against the defendants by either the FDA or the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services in the wake of D’Agostino’s allegations as indications that they weren’t material to the government’s decision to approve the devices for patient use or the payment of Medicare claims. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled earlier this year that a misrepresentation or regulatory violation by a defendant must have been material to the government’s decision to pay an individual claim in order to incur FCA liability.
Bloomberg BNA contacted counsel for both parties for comment, but neither responded.
The appeals court faulted D’Agostino’s proposed amended complaint for failing to cite specific examples of alleged false claim submissions for Onyx and Axium, which are generally a requirement to meet the FCA’s stringent pleading standards. In particular, the court said D’Agostino couldn’t simply allege that a large percentage of patients treated by physicians who lacked proper training in using the Onyx device were Medicare beneficiaries: He needed to link specific Medicare claims to Onyx patients treated by physicians without proper training.
But the court also focused on the Supreme Court’s materiality standard espoused in Universal Health Servs., Inc. v. United States ex rel. Escobar , U.S., No. 15-7, 6/16/16 , for additional support in affirming the lawsuit’s dismissal. D’Agostino alleged that the FDA wouldn’t have approved Onyx if eV3 divulged critical safety information, and therefore the device would have been ineligible for Medicare reimbursement.
The court said D’Agostino’s causal link was too tenuous to support FCA liability. In addition, the court said the CMS’s continued reimbursement of Onyx devices despite D’Agostino’s allegations made six years ago “casts serious doubt on the materiality of the fraudulent representations” alleged.
The court also noted that the FDA has several regulatory tools at its disposal, including issuing a recall, suspending a temporary approval, withdrawing approval or imposing additional requirements on Onyx, and it hasn’t taken any adverse actions. The court said the FDA’s failure to withdraw approval for Onyx precluded support for D’Agostino’s claim that “the FDA’s approval was fraudulently obtained.”
Berger & Montague PC and Shapiro Weissberg & Garin LLP represented D’Agostino. Ropes & Gray LLP represented the defendants.
To contact the reporter on this story: Eric Topor in Washington at email@example.com
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Kendra Casey Plank at firstname.lastname@example.org
The opinion is at http://src.bna.com/k0K.
Copyright © 2016 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)