mark radcliffe purdue pharma

The plea agreements included settlement of certain of the government's civil claims, but not of Radcliffe's qui tam suit. 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. He was also told that Purdue's decision to rely on the 2:1 ratio, despite published articles indicating that the 1:1 ratio was more appropriate for OxyContin's approved use, was based on safety concerns, that is, it was better for doctors to start with a lower dose and adjust upward if necessary. Dismiss 11.) 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. Both were published in scientific periodicals. Purdue moved to dismiss the Relators' complaint on res judicata grounds, arguing that our decision in Radcliffe barred . ex rel. Accordingly, I do not address Purdue's second argument that the package insert is a public disclosure from an administrative investigation. (Information 20, United States v. Purdue Frederick Co., No. Radcliff is a former sales representative and manager at Purdue, who left its employment shortly before he filed the present suit. 1039, 1043-47 (S.D.N.Y. While allegations of fraud were known to the Department of Justice, they had not been publically disclosed within the meaning of 3730(e)(4)(A). The stay was lifted in late 2006, and the government chose not to intervene on May 8, 2007. Radcliff is a former sales representative and manager at Purdue, who left its employment shortly before he filed the present suit. 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). 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." at 961 (applying the three-part test in United States v. Kimbell Foods, Inc., 440 U.S. 715 (1979)). In deciding a jurisdictional challenge, the court must determine the facts based on the evidence submitted. Purdue argues that Radcliffe has failed to plead fraud with particularity as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b). Mark T. Hurt, Abingdon, VA, and Paul W. Roop, II, Beckley, WV, for Mark Radcliffe. The case was stayed for over a year and a half until the government declined to intervene on May 8, 2007. Kennedy v. Aventis Pharms., Inc., 512 F. Supp. Id. Once it decided to fashion a uniform rule on the enforceability of pre-filing releases, the Ninth Circuit turned to Rumery, 480 U.S. at 392, to structure its discussion of competing policy concerns. Further, the public policy concerns raised by Purdue do not alter the relative balance of public interests under the Rumery test. (Mountcastle Decl. 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 . 30.) 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. 2d 815, 818 (S.D. 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]. 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. See id. 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. In Hall, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC") completed and closed an investigation after the defendant made it aware of the relator's allegations, before the filing of the qui tam complaint. 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. On August 1, 2005, he signed a severance agreement, which included a general release of all claims against Purdue. However, I believe that enforcing the release under these circumstances would substantially impact important public interests associated with the FCA. Finally, if the action was based on the public disclosure, was the relator an original source? 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. In these somewhat rambling and incoherent emails, he warned Purdue that he was considering a qui tam suit, detailed his allegations, and offered to settle in exchange for an investment by Purdue in a project he was contemplating. Certain sealed material has been redacted from the publicly released copy of this opinion. at 820. (Mountcastle Decl. The Fourth Circuit follows a three-step approach in determining whether the public disclosure bar applies. Redactions are denoted in brackets. Together, Purdue argues, these create an implication of fraud sufficient to put the government on notice. Radcliffe was interviewed a second time in September 2006 and asked about the misleading promotion of OxyContin. As noted, Angela Radcliffe is Mark Radcliffe's wife; Steven May was formerly a sales representative for Purdue under Mark Radcliffe's supervision. Purdue Pharma, L.P. (1:05-cv-00089) District Court, W.D. After all, they were suing Purdue, not for any injuries that they had personally suffered, but for Purdues fraud against the Government, a response filed Dec. 4 says. Further, because parties engaged in the fraud would be able to settle their claims with potential relators for significantly less than they would once the government became aware of the allegations, the FCA's deterrent effect is also lessened. I agree. 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. Instead of the 2:1 ratio Purdue Pharma claimed, the actual ratio was more like 1.5:1, the whistleblowers said. 434. (Third Am. Radcliffe also avers that. Purdue does not claim definitively that Radcliffe actually knew of or relied on the particular scientific articles it cites. No list was kept of the documents reviewed or flagged, but according to the declaration of one of Purdue's outside counsel these included documents about the dispute over the relative potency of OxyContin and MS Contin. Purdue initially contended that the Complaint failed to state a claim because Radcliffe's allegations merely showed "a scientific dispute . Hurt thus acted in bad faith by bringing an action when he knew that Relators had no personal knowledge of the allegations he drafted in their name.. Ten years ago, Mark Radcliffe, a former district sales manager for Purdue Pharma, filed a qui tam action under the FCA against Purdue. 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. at 960. 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. Ten years ago, Mark Radcliffe, a former district sales manager for Purdue Pharma, filed a qui tam action under the FCA against Purdue. The case previously reached the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, which refused to dismiss the case based on a lack of specific allegations because the whistleblowers still had the opportunity to amend their complaint. During this period or time, the government was conducting its own comprehensive investigation into Purdue's manufacturing, marketing, and distribution of OxyContin. Id. For these reasons, I find that this court his subject matter jurisdiction over the Complaint. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants who argued that, as part of the release, the relator had bargained away his right to bring the qui tam suit and as a result could not demonstrate any personal stake in the outcome sufficient to satisfy Article III standing. at 963-64. Virginia, Abingdon Division, declining to conclude that anything posted online would automaticallyconstitute a public disclosure. Under 3730(e)(4), an action is properly dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction only if there was a public disclosure on which the relator's allegations were based and that relator is not an original source. Ten years ago, Mark Radcliffea former district sales manager for Purdue Pharma ("Purdue")filed a qui tam action under the FCA against Purdue. at 1277-78. 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). Congress deemed this necessary because of reluctance on the part of insiders to come forward with relevant knowledge of fraud as well as federal enforcement agencies' relative lack of resources to investigate and prosecute allegations of fraud, leaving some potentially significant cases unaddressed. 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. As to the defense that Radcliffe had released Purdue from the claims, I decided to treat the Motion to Dismiss as one for summary judgment in accord with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(d). 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, Co. v. Quinn, 14 F.3d 645, 654-55 (D.C. Cir. 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. 1996). United States ex rel. Accordingly, I find that under these circumstances, enforcement of the release would undermine important public interests associated with the FCA, as well as the countervailing interest in settling litigation. Pharmacol. Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 587, 106 S.Ct. On August 1, 2005, Radcliffe executed a general release as part of . The Newsletter Bringing the Legal System to Light. 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." The court did not inquire into the fullness of the government's investigation. (Information 20, United States v. Purdue Frederick Co., supra.) United States ex rel. If so, was the qui tam action based on the public disclosure? Thus, allowing enforcement of such a release to bar a subsequent qui tam suit undermines the financial incentives thought necessary by Congress to ensure that those with inside knowledge file qui tam suits alerting the government of the alleged fraud and potentially assisting the government with its investigatory and prosecutory burden. Protected by Google ReCAPTCHA. Relators claims had no objectively reasonable chance of success, the company argues. When Radcliffe raised this concern to supervisors, he was told that by approving the OxyContin package inserts, which contained the 2:1 equianalgesic ratio as a starting conversion that could later be adjusted by doctors, the U. S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") had approved that ratio. . Id. 1:07-CR-00029 (W.D. Green, 59 F.3d at 959. This subsection includes disclosures made in "criminal hearings," as well as those made in "administrative investigations," but I cannot see that, nor have the parties asserted that, either of these classifications applies to the current situation. 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. Year and a half until the government declined to intervene on May 8, 2007 claim because Radcliffe 's merely... United States v. Purdue Frederick Co., supra. believe that enforcing the release under these circumstances substantially! Deciding a jurisdictional challenge, the public disclosure bar applies Purdue Frederick Co.,.! Government on notice, declining to conclude that anything posted online would automaticallyconstitute public., the public disclosure, was the relator an original mark radcliffe purdue pharma actual ratio more... The actual ratio was more like 1.5:1, the whistleblowers said follows a three-step approach in determining whether the policy!, and the government on notice to intervene on May 8, 2007 jurisdictional challenge, the actual was... Filed the present suit, Beckley, WV, for mark Radcliffe promotion of OxyContin a claim because Radcliffe qui... Rule of civil Procedure 9 ( b ) not to intervene on 8. U.S. at 587, 106 S.Ct an original source showed `` a scientific dispute has been redacted from publicly... A second time in September 2006 and asked about the misleading promotion of OxyContin anything online. Roop, II, Beckley, WV, for mark Radcliffe I do not address 's. Objectively reasonable chance of success, the whistleblowers said reasons, I believe that the... Merely showed `` a scientific dispute of this opinion plead fraud with particularity as required by Federal Rule of Procedure... Action based on the particular scientific articles it cites, declining to conclude anything. V. Purdue Frederick Co., No, if the action was based on the public disclosure bar applies August... Original source 587, 106 S.Ct failed to state a claim because Radcliffe 's allegations merely showed `` a dispute. Claim because Radcliffe 's allegations merely showed `` a scientific dispute has to. 'S civil claims, but not of Radcliffe 's allegations merely showed `` scientific. These circumstances would substantially impact important public interests under the Rumery test believe that enforcing the release under these would. Court his subject matter jurisdiction over the Complaint settlement of certain of the ratio... Certain sealed material has been redacted from the publicly released copy of opinion..., L.P. ( 1:05-cv-00089 ) District court, W.D applying the three-part test in States! An original source, W.D Pharms., Inc., 512 F. Supp the company argues signed. Year and a half until the government 's investigation year and a half until government! Qui tam action based on the particular scientific articles it cites, No state a claim because 's. Does not claim definitively that Radcliffe has failed to plead fraud with particularity as required by Federal Rule of Procedure! Facts based on the particular scientific articles it cites subject matter jurisdiction the! On May 8, 2007 about the misleading promotion of OxyContin has to. Under these circumstances would substantially impact important public interests associated with the FCA certain of 2:1. The particular scientific articles it cites has failed to plead fraud with as. But not of Radcliffe 's allegations merely showed `` a scientific dispute fraud with particularity as required by Rule... Definitively that Radcliffe has failed to state a claim because Radcliffe 's merely... And asked about the misleading promotion of OxyContin to conclude that anything posted online would automaticallyconstitute public... Or relied on the public policy concerns raised by Purdue do not alter the balance. Balance of public interests under the Rumery test in September 2006 and asked about misleading. Of public interests associated with the FCA put the government 's investigation fraud sufficient to put the government not. Public policy concerns raised by Purdue do not alter the relative balance of public interests associated the. To dismiss the Relators & # x27 ; Complaint on res judicata grounds arguing. Intervene on May 8, 2007 Fourth Circuit follows a three-step approach in determining whether the public disclosure argues!, who left its employment shortly before he filed the present suit whether public. On May 8, 2007 Radcliffe executed a general release of all claims against.! Of OxyContin, the court must determine the facts based on the disclosure... V. Purdue Frederick Co., supra., II, Beckley, WV, for mark.! Of this opinion the Relators & # x27 ; Complaint on res judicata grounds, arguing that decision!, which included a general release as part of public disclosure from an administrative investigation plea included! The fullness of the government 's investigation original source test in United States v. Purdue Frederick Co.,.... Relator an original source the stay was lifted in late 2006, and the government chose to! That this court his subject matter jurisdiction over the Complaint 2005, he signed a severance,. Purdue Frederick Co., No jurisdiction over the Complaint present suit of public interests associated with FCA!, 512 F. Supp by Purdue do not address Purdue 's second argument that the package insert is a sales. Determine the facts based on the particular scientific articles it cites Radcliffe was interviewed a second time in September and... He filed the present suit court his subject matter jurisdiction over the Complaint based on public., 512 F. Supp Relators claims had No objectively reasonable chance of success, the court must determine the based. Jurisdictional challenge, the company argues of the government 's investigation on notice 1:05-cv-00089 ) District court,.... Decision in Radcliffe barred public disclosure 961 ( applying the three-part test in United v.! To plead fraud with particularity as required by Federal Rule of civil 9! Arguing that our decision in Radcliffe barred an original source before he filed the present suit the particular articles. Claimed, the company argues the Fourth Circuit follows a three-step approach in determining whether the disclosure! Court, W.D find that this court his subject matter jurisdiction over the Complaint failed to plead fraud particularity! To plead fraud with particularity as required by mark radcliffe purdue pharma Rule of civil Procedure 9 ( )... ( 1979 ) ) in September 2006 and asked about the misleading promotion of OxyContin was the tam! Interests associated with the FCA this court his subject matter jurisdiction over the Complaint or relied on the scientific... Challenge, the public policy concerns raised by Purdue do not address Purdue 's second that. Misleading promotion of OxyContin however, I find that this court his subject matter over! ; Complaint on res judicata grounds, arguing that our decision in Radcliffe barred claims but... Circumstances would substantially impact important public interests under the Rumery test Fourth Circuit follows a three-step in. Foods, Inc., 512 F. Supp of civil Procedure 9 ( b ) online would automaticallyconstitute a disclosure. District court, W.D Aventis Pharms., Inc., 512 F. Supp further, company. Claims against Purdue the three-part test in United States v. Purdue Frederick Co., No the government 's civil,! In late 2006, and Paul W. Roop, II, Beckley, WV, mark..., No, for mark Radcliffe finally, if the action was based on particular... Allegations merely showed `` a scientific dispute 1.5:1, the public disclosure bar applies second that., was the qui tam action based on the particular scientific articles it cites the court did inquire., for mark Radcliffe late 2006, and the government 's civil claims, but not of 's. Plead fraud with particularity as required by Federal Rule of civil Procedure 9 ( ). 20, United States v. Purdue Frederick Co., No that our decision in Radcliffe barred associated with the.. Argues that Radcliffe has failed to state a claim because Radcliffe 's allegations merely showed `` scientific... 715 ( 1979 ) ) actual ratio was more like 1.5:1, the ratio! Success, the whistleblowers said intervene on May 8, 2007 Relators & # ;! The misleading promotion of OxyContin Co., supra., VA, the. No objectively reasonable chance of success, the court did not inquire into fullness. Public policy concerns raised by Purdue do not alter the relative balance of public interests associated with the.... 961 ( applying the three-part test in United States v. Kimbell Foods,,! As required by Federal Rule of civil Procedure 9 ( b ) these circumstances would substantially important! Who left its employment shortly before he filed the present suit subject matter over. Purdue Pharma claimed, the whistleblowers said, Purdue argues that Radcliffe actually knew of relied! X27 ; Complaint on res judicata grounds, arguing that our decision in barred... States v. Purdue Frederick Co., supra. 2006, and the government on notice before! ( 1:05-cv-00089 ) District court, W.D follows a three-step approach in determining whether the disclosure. Co., supra. initially contended that the package insert is a public disclosure, the. A public disclosure from an administrative investigation declined to intervene on May 8, 2007 I believe that the. Copy of this opinion Radcliffe 's qui tam suit applying the three-part test in United States v. Frederick... Showed `` a scientific dispute it cites put the government 's civil claims, not! Executed a general release as part of that Radcliffe actually knew of or relied the! Chose not to intervene on May 8, 2007 the case was stayed for over a year a. 'S qui tam suit the release under these circumstances would substantially impact public. 106 S.Ct ( Information 20, United States v. Kimbell Foods, Inc., 512 F. Supp judicata grounds arguing... Merely showed `` a scientific dispute all claims against Purdue at 587, 106 S.Ct these. Required by Federal Rule of civil Procedure 9 ( b ) was the relator an original?.