Is this you? As a journalist, you can create a free Muck Rack account to customize your profile, list your contact preferences, and upload a portfolio of your best work.
Claim your profile
Articles by Evan Panich
District Court Rejects FCA Claim Based on “Substandard” Product
On March 13, 2018, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma dismissed U.S. ex rel. Montalvo v. Native American Servs. Corp. In this case, the relators alleged that the defendants performed substandard work at a US Army ammunition plant. Specifically, the relators alleged that the defendant oversaw a construction project in which a subcontractor was ordered to pour concrete into areas that contained tree roots and stems, which allegedly damaged the quality of the concrete.
Ninth Circuit Case Insight Government Action Bar
When is a new qui tam lawsuit derivative of a lawsuit in which the government has already intervened? The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit answered that question on December 1, 2017, when it decided United States ex rel. Bennett v. Biotronik, Inc. In doing so, the Ninth Circuit addressed the “government action bar” contained in 31 U.S.C. § 3730(e)(3), which states that a relator may not bring a qui tam suit “based upon allegations or transactions which are the subject of a civil suit . . .
Tenth Circuit Expands First-to-File Rule, Dismissing Complaint after Substitution of Parties
On September 18, 2017, the Tenth Circuit reversed a decision of the US District Court for the District of Utah in United States ex rel. Little v. Triumph Gear Sys., Inc. In doing so, the Tenth Circuit concluded that the False Claims Act’s first-to-file bar extends to situations where relators’ counsel substitute parties prior to the initial complaint even being unsealed.
Fourth Circuit Decision in Triple Canopy Sets up Another Implied Certification Circuit Split
On May 16, 2017, the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued a decision in US ex rel. Badr v. Triple Canopy, Inc. In this case, the government had contracted with a private security company to provide guards at a military airbase in Iraq. Although the applicable contract required the guards to have certain marksmanship scores, the defendant (as alleged by the relator and the government) failed to employ guards with the requisite qualifications.
First Circuit Court Tosses Complaint After Finding of Misconduct
On April 28, 2017, the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts dismissed a relator’s qui tam complaint in United States ex rel. Leysock v. Forest Laboratories, Inc. after concluding that the complaint relied on information obtained resulting from deceptive conduct by the relator’s counsel. In Leysock, the relator alleged that the defendant caused the submission of false claims to Medicare by promoting Forest’s dementia drug, Namenda, for off-label label use.
Another District Court Dismisses Improperly Pled Implied Certification Claims
On March 27, 2017, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania dismissed a False Claims Act (FCA) complaint due to failure to satisfy the Supreme Court’s pleading standards for implied certification claims. In U.S. ex rel. Schimelpfenig v. Dr. Reddy’s Labs.
Relying on Escobar, Ninth Circuit Tosses Implied Certification Case
On January 12, 2017, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of a government contractor, where a relator had asserted that the contractor had violated material contractual requirements. In United States ex rel. Kelly v.
Supreme Court Determines that Seal Violation Does Not Mandate Dismissal
On December 6, 2016, the Supreme Court of the United States decided State Farm Fire and Casualty Co. v. United States ex rel. Cori Rigsby and Kerri Rigsby. At issue was whether a qui tam relator’s violation of the seal requirement, 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)(2), requires a court to dismiss the suit. In a unanimous decision, the Court concluded that violation of the seal does not mandate dismissal, affirming a lower court decision to deny the defendant’s motion to dismiss.
Show More
loading
Actions
Is this you?
As a journalist, you can create a free Muck Rack account to customize your profile, list your contact preferences, and upload a portfolio of your best work.Get in touch with Evan
Contact Evan, search articles and posts on X, monitor coverage, and track replies from one place.
Learn more about Muck Rack