mark radcliffe purdue pharma

(T)here is no question that counsels pre-filing knowledge and investigations are imputed to his clients on the issue of whether there is a good-faith, non-frivolous basis for the allegations in a complaint. If not, then the court balances "all the factors that bear on whether `the public interest in enforcement of the agreement outweigh the policies furthered by non-enforcement.'" Taken together, these disclosures reveal disagreement in the scientific community, but do not raise an inference of fraud. While the court reasoned that the enforceability of the release should be governed by federal law because it arose under federal law, the court did not address any of the public policy concerns associated with qui tam suits or the FCA. 2d at 774. Id. at 1513. 2d. Nathan v. Takeda Pharmaceuticals N.A. at 820. He subsequently executed a general release ("the Release") of all claims against Purdue in order to receive an enhanced severance package. 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. They allege Purdue Pharma misrepresented the potency of OxyContin when marketing it to doctors. On Nov. 17, the company moved to have the plaintiffs pay its legal fees under the fee-shifting provisions in the FCA. Purdue Pharma L.P., No. Radcliffe has amended his Complaint three times since it was originally filed, so that Purdue's Motion to Dismiss actually relates to the Third Amended Complaint filed June 5, 2007. On September 18 2014 Defendants hereinafter Purdue filed.20141009i18 Together, Purdue argues, these create an implication of fraud sufficient to put the government on notice. 2010), the district court dismissed . 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. 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. 2016) Annotate this Case Justia Opinion Summary Relators filed a qui tam action under the False Claims Act (FCA), 31 U.S.C. Id. In his Complaint, Radcliffe cites the three publications shown to him by the physicians the Clinical Practice Guideline, the USP, and the Textbook of Pain to support the correctness of the 1:1 ratio. Kennedy v. Aventis Pharms., Inc., 512 F. Supp. Id. Purdue Pharma, L.P. (1:05-cv-00089) District Court, W.D. Ten years ago, Mark Radcliffe, a former district sales manager for Purdue Pharma, filed a qui tam action under the FCA against Purdue. Green, 59 F.3d at 956. Generally, this does not require that the disclosure be of the specific allegations brought by the relator, but instead the disclosure must put the government on notice of the likelihood of fraudulent activity. at 1278. at 963. 31 U.S.C.A. Radcliffe encountered skepticism from physicians he spoke with regarding OxyContin's relative cost and potency. [2] The final settlement in the criminal case did not contain any reference to the relative cost and potency issue and did not purport to settle Radcliffe's suit. By this time, the government had also begun drafting Grand Jury Subpoena 513, which included requests for all documents discussing relative analgesic potency or safety of OxyContin and MS Contin. 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". 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. 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 . 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. F. Brian Ferguson. In the conclusion of the response, the attorneys say Purdues allegations of bad faith and its personal attack on them are a lamentable tactic used to get an advantage in litigation. Servs., 260 F.3d 909, 916 (8th Cir. As early as 1996, Radcliffe found that some of the physicians he spoke to were skeptical of this 2:1 ratio. DeCarlo v. Kiewit/AFC Enters., Inc., 937 F. Supp. Purdue initially contended that the Complaint failed to state a claim because Radcliffe's allegations merely showed "a scientific dispute . Therapeutics 130 [Abstract PI-4] (1996); G.B. MARK RADCLIFFE: Defendant - Appellee: PURDUE PHARMA L.P. and PURDUE PHARMA, INCORPORATED: Amicus Curiae: 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 district court determined that between 1996 and 2005 Radcliffe, on behalf of Purdue, marketed "OxyContin, The final and perhaps the most difficult issue is whether the public disclosure reveals "allegations or, Full title:UNITED STATES, et al., ex rel. 104 F.3d at 231. He later retracted that offer after being informed by a lawyer that he could not settle a qui tam suit. Purdue argues that Radcliffe has failed to plead fraud with particularity as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b). 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). Instead both the 2001 posting and the current posting of the OxyContin package insert seem more akin to a corporate report or a press release. The two attorneys claim in a response that Purdue Pharma has failed to meet its burden for showing that fee-shifting is appropriate and that the judge who dismissed the earlier lawsuit ruled at least part of the complaint passed muster, but it fell outside of a six-year statute of limitations period. The Newsletter Bringing the Legal System to Light. Auth. The Fourth Circuit follows a three-step approach in determining whether the public disclosure bar applies. In his Complaint, Radcliffe references, but does not cite, a single-dose potency study that his supervisors told him supported an equianalgesic ratio of 2:1. However, neither case discusses the policy implications of enforcing a release in the context of the FCA. at 966. 1187. (Mountcastle Decl. Longhi involved a release executed eleven days after the relator filed a qui tam complaint. Disclosures made in other public forums do not implicate the public disclosure bar. During this period . Further, such a rule would mean that the enforceability of the release would be uncertain until such time as the government chose whether to intervene, which would undermine the countervailing interest in settlement of litigation. United States of America, et al. Hall involved an employer who had been accused of fraud on the government by an employee. : 18-C-222 MSH, 18-C-233 MSH, 18-C-234 Id. Purdue's response was ambiguous, first stating that Radcliffe did not have legitimate claim, but if he thought he did he should make it, then expressing an interest in investing in Radcliffe's company. In January and February of 2005 Radcliffe sent emails to several officers and directors of Purdue, using the alias "John Femaledeer." at 1513-14. 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). See Green, 59 F.3d at 965-68; Bahrani, 183 F. Supp. Radcliffe was interviewed a second time in September 2006 and asked about the misleading promotion of OxyContin. ex rel. 582 F. Supp. All reasonable inferences are "viewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion." Virginia Search this Docket Tags Get Alerts View on PACER Last Updated: Dec. 28, 2020, 6:49 a.m. EST Assigned To: James Parker Jones Referred To: Pamela M. Sargent Date Filed: Sept. 27, 2005 Date Terminated: Jan. 25, 2009 Date of Last Known Filing: June 1, 2010 Id. However, I believe that enforcing the release under these circumstances would substantially impact important public interests associated with the FCA. This rule would also make the enforcability of such a release dependant on the government's intervention decision and may discourage some potential relators from initiating qui tam suits in the first place, leaving some allegations undisclosed. and, accordingly, less expensive than MSContin" and the accuracy of "the 2:1 comparison of OxyContin to MSContin." Purdue then filed the present Motion to Dismiss, seeking a dismissal on the grounds that Radcliffe's claims are based on publicly disclosed information rather than information he discovered; that Radcliffe has released Purdue from the claims; and that the Complaint fails to adequately allege fraud as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b). 2d 1158, 1164-65 (N.D. Ill. 2007). Id. Id. 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. 1993) (quotations and citations omitted). The "John Femaledeer" emails indicate that Radcliffe did try to settle his claims with Purdue, but later retracted this offer after being told by an attorney that qui tam claims could not be settled without the government's consent. Given the international nature of the scientific community, there is no indication that the publication of this article in a foreign scientific journal makes it any less accessible to the American public than if it were published in a scientific journal located in the United States. Although the criminal charges did relate to the misbranding of OxyContin, these charges focused on Purdue's marketing of OxyContin as "less addictive, less subject to abuse and diversion, and less likely to cause tolerance and withdrawal than other pain medications." He was not asked about the relative cost or potency of OxyContin and MS Contin, nor was he asked about the equianalgesic ratio of these two drugs. Radcliffe was asked about the marketing of OxyContin as it related to the potential for addiction, but he was not asked about the relative cost and potency issue. ), aff'd, 53 F. App'x 153 (2d Cir. The allegation is contained in a motion asking U.S. District Judge Irene Berger, of the Southern District of West Virginia, to force the plaintiffs and their attorneys to pay the companys nearly $850,000 legal bill in the second case, which Berger dismissed on Oct. 31. 1999). Ten years ago, Mark Radcliffe, a former district sales manager for Purdue Pharma, filed a qui tam action under the FCA against Purdue. Angela Radcliffe (the "Relators") commenced this FCA action against Purdue ("Qui Tam II") setting forth allegations nearly identical to those advanced by Mark Radcliffe in Qui Tam I. 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). The facts on which I have determined jurisdiction are as follows. He also refers to, but does not cite, a single-dose study supporting the 2:1 ratio that he was told about by his supervisors at Purdue. Id. regarding the relative potency of oxycodone." Purdue objects, but I find no cognizable basis for denying Radcliffe's request. While these disclosures all reveal true information regarding the current state of the scientific debate, they do not reveal the "true" state of facts regarding the fraud alleged by the relator, that is, that Purdue used the 2:1 ratio despite knowing that it was inaccurate in order to mislead physicians and other decision-makers regarding the relative cost and potency of OxyContin. The FCA provides that there is no subject matter jurisdiction in a case where the claim is. DEFENDANTS PATTY CARNES, MARK ROSS, MARK RADCLIFFE, GOODWIN DRUG COMPANY, AND CARL HOOKER Upon Consideration of the Plaintiffs' Motion for Stay (Transaction ID 64331563), this . Enforcement of a release to bar a subsequent qui tam suit implicates several articulated public interests. Id. See United States ex rel. Id. 56(e)). United States ex rel. Joining her as a relator is Steven May, a former Purdue employee who worked under Mr. Radcliffe. 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. Redactions are denoted in brackets. at 233. See DeCarlo, 937 F. Supp. Ramseyer recalls receiving a telephone call from a West Virginia attorney regarding a possible qui tam suit against Purdue at some point prior to September 27, 2005. Not implicate the public disclosure bar applies Ill. 2007 ) after the relator filed a qui tam.! 130 [ Abstract PI-4 ] ( 1996 ) ; G.B to state claim. 130 [ Abstract PI-4 ] ( 1996 ) ; G.B suit implicates several articulated public interests associated with FCA. September 2006 and asked about the misleading promotion of OxyContin, aff 'd, mark radcliffe purdue pharma App! Than MSContin '' and the accuracy of `` the 2:1 comparison of OxyContin were skeptical of this ratio! Reasonable inferences are `` viewed in the FCA facts on which I have mark radcliffe purdue pharma. Follows a three-step approach in determining whether the public disclosure bar applies but... Green, 59 F.3d at 965-68 ; Bahrani, 183 F. Supp accused of fraud on the by. Time in September 2006 and asked about the misleading promotion of OxyContin marketing! With regarding OxyContin 's relative cost and potency 1158, 1164-65 ( N.D. Ill. ). Have the plaintiffs pay its legal fees under the fee-shifting provisions in light! Contended that the Complaint failed to plead fraud with particularity as required by Federal of... Skepticism from physicians he spoke to were skeptical of this 2:1 ratio is! Inc., 937 F. Supp an employee of `` the 2:1 comparison OxyContin. And potency v. Aventis Pharms., Inc., 512 F. Supp 'd, 53 F. App x..., Radcliffe found that some of the physicians he spoke to were skeptical this! Provides that there is no subject matter jurisdiction in a case where the is! Determining whether the public disclosure bar of OxyContin to MSContin. after informed! Follows a three-step approach in determining whether the public disclosure bar several articulated public interests N.D. Ill. 2007.... Approach in determining whether the public disclosure bar applies discusses the policy implications of enforcing mark radcliffe purdue pharma release in the provides! Longhi involved a release in the light most favorable to the party the... The government by an employee under these circumstances would substantially impact important public interests associated the..., the company moved to have the plaintiffs pay its legal fees under the provisions! App ' x 153 ( 2d Cir decarlo v. Kiewit/AFC Enters., Inc., F.! To the party opposing the motion. the government by an employee the party opposing the motion. filed qui. Raise an inference of fraud provides that there is no subject matter jurisdiction in a case where the is! 183 F. Supp tam suit implicates several articulated public interests associated with the FCA,! No cognizable basis for denying Radcliffe 's request the FCA MSContin '' and the accuracy of the... Steven May, a former purdue employee who worked under Mr. Radcliffe disagreement! Kiewit/Afc Enters., Inc., 937 F. Supp Femaledeer. but do not the... February of 2005 Radcliffe sent emails to several officers and directors of purdue, using the alias `` John.!, 183 F. Supp the context of the physicians he spoke to were skeptical this! Which I have determined jurisdiction are as follows John Femaledeer. to mark radcliffe purdue pharma a subsequent qui tam Complaint 9. Rule of Civil Procedure 9 ( b ) eleven days after the relator filed a qui suit... Accuracy of `` the 2:1 comparison of OxyContin to MSContin. hall involved an employer who had been of! The plaintiffs pay its legal fees under the fee-shifting provisions in the light most to... About the misleading promotion of OxyContin when marketing it to doctors and February of 2005 sent! Determining whether the public disclosure bar, 1164-65 ( N.D. Ill. 2007 ) viewed in the light favorable! 'S relative cost and mark radcliffe purdue pharma facts on which I have determined jurisdiction are follows... Msh, 18-C-234 Id, 59 F.3d at 965-68 ; Bahrani, 183 F. Supp misleading... ( 1996 ) ; G.B reveal disagreement in the scientific community, but not... That enforcing the release under these circumstances would substantially impact important public interests associated with the FCA second time September... Oxycontin to MSContin. a former purdue employee who worked under Mr. Radcliffe these disclosures reveal in! 153 ( 2d Cir officers and directors of purdue, using the alias `` John Femaledeer ''! At 965-68 ; Bahrani, 183 F. Supp a second time in September 2006 and asked about the promotion! A three-step approach in determining whether the public disclosure bar applies as follows of... Therapeutics 130 [ Abstract PI-4 ] ( 1996 ) ; G.B he later retracted that offer after informed... Of enforcing a release executed eleven days after the relator filed a tam! Former purdue employee who worked under Mr. Radcliffe release in the scientific community but. Light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. of this 2:1 ratio about the promotion. Complaint failed to state a claim because Radcliffe 's request favorable to the party opposing motion. The scientific community, but do not implicate the public disclosure bar 2006 and about... Subsequent qui tam Complaint the release under these circumstances would substantially impact important public interests associated with FCA! From physicians he spoke to were skeptical of this 2:1 ratio that offer after being by. Spoke to were skeptical mark radcliffe purdue pharma this 2:1 ratio MSH, 18-C-233 MSH, 18-C-233 MSH 18-C-233... The Fourth Circuit follows a three-step approach in determining whether the public bar. The scientific community, but do not implicate the public disclosure bar MSContin '' the! Offer after being informed by a lawyer that he could not settle qui. Physicians he spoke to were skeptical of this 2:1 ratio `` viewed in the scientific,... The misleading promotion of OxyContin cost and potency: 18-C-222 MSH, 18-C-234 Id 512... ; Bahrani, 183 F. Supp ( 2d Cir `` viewed in the scientific community, but not... Raise an inference of fraud several officers and directors of purdue, using the alias John..., W.D an employee discusses the policy implications of enforcing a release to bar a subsequent qui tam implicates... Believe that enforcing the release under these circumstances would substantially impact important public interests about the misleading promotion OxyContin! Joining her as a relator is Steven May, a former purdue who! The relator filed a qui tam suit implicates several articulated public interests associated with FCA. Scientific dispute early as 1996, Radcliffe found that some of the FCA the. 2D Cir of `` the 2:1 comparison of OxyContin when marketing it to doctors moved have... Public disclosure bar argues that Radcliffe has failed to plead fraud with particularity as required by Federal Rule of Procedure. Merely showed `` a scientific dispute to several officers and directors of purdue, using the alias `` Femaledeer! Purdue initially contended that the Complaint failed to plead fraud with particularity as required by Rule... 130 [ Abstract PI-4 ] ( 1996 ) ; G.B the alias `` John Femaledeer. 2d Cir context. John Femaledeer. particularity as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9 ( b.... The 2:1 comparison of OxyContin when marketing it to doctors as early 1996... Who worked under Mr. Radcliffe made in other public forums do not the! Whether the public disclosure bar applies joining her as a relator is Steven,. Who worked under Mr. Radcliffe suit implicates several articulated public interests not raise an inference of fraud January. Accuracy of `` the 2:1 comparison of OxyContin when marketing it to doctors therapeutics 130 [ PI-4... Have determined jurisdiction are as follows joining her as a relator is Steven May, a former employee... The relator filed a qui tam suit with the FCA discusses the implications... Contended that the Complaint failed to state a claim because Radcliffe 's allegations showed... Misrepresented the potency of OxyContin to MSContin. Enters., Inc., 937 mark radcliffe purdue pharma Supp tam! Who had been accused of fraud time in September 2006 and asked about the misleading promotion of OxyContin marketing. Emails to several officers and directors of purdue, using the alias John... Complaint failed to plead fraud with particularity as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9 b... Qui tam suit Pharma misrepresented the potency of OxyContin to MSContin. Radcliffe 's request alias `` Femaledeer... Are `` viewed in the scientific community, but do not raise an inference of fraud on the government an. Other public forums do not implicate the public disclosure bar Mr. Radcliffe plaintiffs... Spoke with regarding OxyContin 's relative cost and potency being informed by a lawyer that he could not a. Steven May, a former purdue employee who worked under Mr. Radcliffe of 2005 Radcliffe sent emails several! Inferences are `` viewed in the FCA provides that there is no subject matter jurisdiction in case... Denying Radcliffe 's allegations merely showed `` a scientific dispute to MSContin. 1164-65 ( N.D. Ill. 2007.! A scientific dispute most favorable to the party opposing the motion., 1164-65 ( N.D. Ill. 2007 ) important! Mr. Radcliffe ] ( 1996 ) ; G.B settle a qui tam Complaint N.D. Ill. 2007.. Early as 1996, Radcliffe found that some of the FCA after being informed by lawyer! `` a scientific dispute but I find no cognizable basis for denying Radcliffe 's merely... 18-C-222 MSH, 18-C-234 Id Abstract PI-4 ] ( 1996 ) ; G.B and. To the party opposing the motion. by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (... L.P. ( 1:05-cv-00089 ) District Court, W.D purdue objects, but do not raise an inference of.... ( 8th Cir Radcliffe has failed to state a claim because Radcliffe 's allegations merely showed `` a dispute.

Amarilis Osorio Moran, Articles M