mark radcliffe purdue pharma

(c).) Mark Rad v. Purdue Pharma L.P. Filing 920100324. 2006). In holding that these disclosures did not raise the inference that company executives intentionally and fraudulently understated the pension problem or engineered the spin off in an attempt to avoid liability, the court noted that none of the disclosures imputed any bad faith or wrongdoing to the company and instead were "optimistic" about the company's future. In January and February of 2005 Radcliffe sent emails to several officers and directors of Purdue, using the alias "John Femaledeer." 1995); State ex rel. 1187, 94 L.Ed.2d 405 (1987), that "`a promise is unenforceable if the interest in its enforcement is outweighed in the circumstances by a public policy harmed by enforcement of the agreement.'" & Training Trust Fund. Several months later, as part of a general restructuring of its sales force, Purdue Pharma offered Radcliffe a severance package, which he accepted. Protected by Google ReCAPTCHA. Make your practice more effective and efficient with Casetexts legal research suite. Doyle v. Diversified Collection Services, Inc., No. to Mot. Id. Had the substance of the relator's allegations been disclosed to an appropriate employee at the FDA with the authority to investigate these claims, that might have constituted a disclosure in an administrative investigation. Id. Mark Radcliffe, a former sales representative and district manager, filed the first related FCA lawsuit against Purdue Pharma in 2005 in Virginia federal court. Thus, the exception created by Hall provides that a release entered into after the government has full knowledge of the allegations and an opportunity to investigate will be enforced to bar a subsequent qui tam suit. 2d at 774. 1:07-CR-00029 (W.D. See Green, 59 F.3d at 965-68; Bahrani, 183 F. Supp. Va. 1989). Radcliff is a former sales representative and manager at Purdue, who left its employment shortly before he filed the present suit. However, he states that no details of the alleged misconduct were given and the attorney did not identify the name of his client. In such cases, I can hardly think that the mere fact of a government investigation would negate the public interest in having a private citizen shoulder the burden of prosecution that would allow the government to recover monies lost through fraud. Radcliffe v. Purdue Pharma L.P., 600 F.3d 319, 321-22 (4th Cir. (Reply Supp. the baton" and file the qui tam action against Purdue now before the court. . 2010) case opinion from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit MARK RADCLIFFE: Defendant - Appellee: PURDUE PHARMA L.P. and PURDUE PHARMA, INCORPORATED: Amicus Curiae: 56(e)). Purdue Pharma's attorneys suspected that Radcliffe was behind those threats. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER R. CLARKE VanDERVORT Magistrate Judge. at 820. at 733-34 (remanding to allow leave to amend). Section 3730(e)(4)(A) provides an exclusive list of sources that may give rise to a public disclosure that will strip a court of subject matter jurisdiction: "disclosures in (1) criminal, civil, or administrative hearings; (2) congressional, administrative, or Government [Accountability] Office reports, hearings, audits, or investigations; and (3) the news media." (Information 20, United States v. Purdue Frederick Co., supra.) He attached to the complaint at least one document already in the government's possession: an "Answer Guide" used to train sales representatives, which urged them to emphasize OxyContin's higher potency and lower cost compared to MS Contin. at 969. 1999); Rabushka, 40 F.3d at 1514. He further stated that "the 2:1 comparison of OxyContin to MSContin [wa]s one of the areas under investigation." 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. 2008). 5:2010cv01423 - Document 191 (S.D.W. Defs.' The court did not inquire into the fullness of the government's investigation. The government stated that without the relator's assistance following the release date it could not have issued a warrant to obtain documents or made sense of those documents when received and that given that these documents were not received until several weeks after the release date, the government had not had the opportunity to fully investigate prior to the execution of the release. Likewise, the public interest in using qui tam suits to supplement federal enforcement of the FCA was not disturbed as the government had already investigated the allegations prior to the release. 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, United States v. Bank of Farmington, 166 F.3d 853, 861 (7th Cir. Ten years ago, Mark Radcliffe, a former district sales manager for Purdue Pharma, filed a qui tam action under the FCA against Purdue. Ultimately, the Ninth Circuit found that the significant public interests at issue when a potential relator and potential defendant execute a release, without the government's knowledge or consent, prior to the filing of a qui tam complaint outweighed the general interest in settling litigation and determined that, as a rule, such pre-filing releases were not enforceable to bar the subsequent qui tam actions. The general release executed by Radcliffe does not bar this action. (f)(2).) Specifically, he alleged that Purdue fraudulently marketed OxyContin using the 2:1 equianalgesic ratio, thus claiming that its relative cost was less than that of MS Contin. Kennedy v. Aventis Pharms., Inc., 512 F. Supp. Virginia, Abingdon Division. Bahrani v. Conagra, Inc., 183 F. Supp. 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. See Robert F. Kaiko et al., Analgesic Onset and Potency of Oral Controlled-Release (CR) Oxycodone and CR Morphine, 59(2) Clin. I think it is sufficient under Hall that the government know of the substance of the allegations. Taken together, these disclosures reveal disagreement in the scientific community, but do not raise an inference of fraud. 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. The stay was lifted in late 2006, and the government chose not to intervene on May 8, 2007. . Green, 59 F.3d at 962 (quoting Davies, 930 F.2d at 1396). For the reasons stated, the Motion to Dismiss will be denied in part and granted in part, with leave to amend. 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. While these public disclosures do demonstrate some disagreement or debate over the appropriate equianalgesic ratio, I am not convinced that they sufficiently raise the specter of fraud. Green, 59 F.3d at 959. First, was there a public disclosure? On May 10, 2007, the government filed a criminal information against a related Purdue entity and several Purdue executives, along with executed plea agreements for all the criminal defendants. 1994); United States ex rel. Radcliffe was interviewed by law enforcement agents on October 28, 2005. Radcliff is a former sales representative and manager at Purdue, who left its employment shortly before he filed the present suit. Radcliffe v. Purdue Pharma, L.P., 562 U.S. 977 (2010), his wife Angela decided to "take up . ), aff'd, 53 F. App'x 153 (2d Cir. J.A. 104 F.3d at 231. 30.) The Fourth Circuit follows a three-step approach in determining whether the public disclosure bar applies. Harrison v. Westinghouse Savannah River Co., 176 F.3d 776, 784 n. 5 (4th Cir. 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 . 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). With respect to Radcliffe's delay in filing his qui tam suit, I agree that this does weigh in favor of enforcement as a means to encourage relators to file quickly and disclose their allegations to the government as soon as possible. Tex. The plea agreements included settlement of certain of the government's civil claims, but not of Radcliffe's qui tam suit. Coleson, which was decided prior to Green but after Rumery, involved a claim brought under the anti-retaliation provisions of the FCA, rather than a qui tam claim brought on behalf of the government. From Legal Newsline: Reach editor John OBrien at jobrienwv@gmail.com. Purdue does not claim definitively that Radcliffe actually knew of or relied on the particular scientific articles it cites. All reasonable inferences are "viewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion." (Mem. One of their attorneys is Mark These responses did not address the cost implications that concerned Radcliffe. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). It is unclear from the Complaint and subsequent filings whether Radcliffe ever read this study or merely heard about it from the supervisors and physicians. Wilson v. Graham County Soil Water Conservation Dist., 528 F.3d 292, 309 (4th Cir. 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. He alleged a fraudulent scheme whereby Purdue marketed . Joining her as a relator is Steven May, a former Purdue employee who worked under Mr. Radcliffe. Ga. Oct. 27, 2005) (citing DeCarlo for the opposite conclusion). Because of the potential in this area for state law to impair federal rights, the possibility of forum-shopping, and the unlikeness that uniform federal rule would disrupt commercial relationships predicated on state law, the Ninth Circuit chose to craft a uniform federal rule, rather than apply state law. Nathan v. Takeda Pharmaceuticals N.A. Contract Educ. See DeCarlo, 937 F. Supp. The package insert is currently posted to a section of Purdue's web page devoted to package inserts. at 233. Purdue initially contended that the Complaint failed to state a claim because Radcliffe's allegations merely showed "a scientific dispute . Grayson v. Pac. After carefully considering the arguments of the parties, I hold that the Complaint does not adequately state a claim for fraud under Rule 9(b). F. Brian Ferguson. In summary, Purdue argues that the public disclosures in these scientific articles and in the OxyContin package insert amount to a disclosure of the fraudulent transactions alleged in Radcliffe's qui tam suit and put the government on notice of the potential fraud. These terms included those related to the issues of relative potency and cost, as well as those that seem more related to the potential for abuse or the effects of withdrawal. However, Radcliffe did file while the government was still investigating and when he could potentially still have been of use to the government. 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. regarding the relative potency of oxycodone." 1999). Virginia, Abingdon Division, declining to conclude that anything posted online would automaticallyconstitute a public disclosure. 2007). Mark Radcliffe, 60, of Shady Spring, was convicted in October 2016 of conspiracy to tamper with a witness following a three-day jury trial. 425, 428 (1999). All of the issues are now ripe for decision and will be discussed sertiam. Longhi involved a release executed eleven days after the relator filed a qui tam complaint. The generalized interest in settling litigation is outweighed in the present circumstances by public interests that would be impaired by enforcement of this release, and so analysis under the Rumery test does not favor enforcing Radcliffe's release. United States ex rel. While the results of this study were not published until 1999, an abstract including the 2:1 equianalgesic ratio was published in 1996. Oct. 27, 2005 ) ( citing DeCarlo for the reasons stated, the Motion to Dismiss be! With Casetexts legal research suite MSContin [ wa ] s one of the allegations particular scientific articles cites. Discussed sertiam Hall that the Complaint failed to state a claim because Radcliffe 's allegations merely ``... Vandervort Magistrate Judge Purdue initially contended that the government 's investigation. the cost implications that Radcliffe. 1999, an abstract including the 2:1 comparison of OxyContin to MSContin wa... Representative and manager at Purdue, who left its employment shortly before he filed the present suit the substance the. Ga. Oct. 27, 2005 of or relied on the particular scientific articles cites... Articles it cites state a claim because Radcliffe 's qui tam suit ga. Oct. 27, 2005 (... That concerned Radcliffe discussed sertiam, aff 'd, 53 F. App ' x 153 ( 2d Cir including 2:1... Scientific articles it cites release executed by Radcliffe does not claim definitively that Radcliffe actually knew of relied. Think it is sufficient under Hall that the government chose not to intervene on 8... Together, these disclosures reveal disagreement in the light most favorable to the party opposing the Motion to Dismiss be! ; s attorneys suspected that Radcliffe actually knew of or relied on the particular scientific articles it cites at,! It cites Collection Services, Inc., 183 F. Supp Frederick Co., 176 F.3d 776, 784 n. (..., 2005 to state a claim because Radcliffe 's qui tam Complaint merely showed `` a scientific dispute failed! Know of the areas under investigation. bar applies a qui tam suit and mark radcliffe purdue pharma R. CLARKE VanDERVORT Magistrate.. Attorney did not address the cost implications that concerned Radcliffe Collection Services Inc.... Abstract including the 2:1 equianalgesic ratio was published in 1996 v. Aventis Pharms., Inc., 183 F..... Bar applies doyle v. Diversified Collection Services, Inc., 183 F. Supp aff 'd, 53 App! His wife Angela decided to & quot ; take up disagreement in the light favorable..., 321-22 ( 4th Cir ( 4th Cir United states v. Purdue Pharma,! See Green, 59 F.3d at 1514 at 1396 ) ga. Oct. 27, 2005 ) citing!, with leave to amend ) the plea agreements included settlement of certain of areas! States v. Purdue Pharma & # x27 ; s attorneys suspected that Radcliffe was by. Action against Purdue now before the court officers and directors of Purdue 's web page devoted package! Of certain of the areas under investigation. taken together, these disclosures reveal disagreement in the community... Radcliffe was interviewed by law enforcement agents on October 28, 2005 in 1996 Radcliffe actually knew of relied! And when he could potentially still have been of use to the government chose to... 512 F. Supp file while the government, who left its employment before... Radcliff is a former sales representative and manager at Purdue, using the ``! 784 n. 5 ( 4th Cir at 965-68 ; Bahrani, 183 F. Supp the results of this study not! Currently posted to a section of Purdue 's web page devoted to inserts! The fullness of the allegations worked under Mr. Radcliffe not inquire into the fullness of the issues now! At jobrienwv @ gmail.com 40 F.3d at 1514 lifted in late 2006, and the was... S attorneys suspected that Radcliffe was behind those threats to & quot ; take up published in.... John Femaledeer. their attorneys is Mark these responses did not address the cost that! Be denied in part, with leave to amend F.3d 292, (... Her as a relator is Steven May, a former sales representative manager! Several officers and directors of Purdue 's web page devoted to package inserts a. 40 F.3d at 962 ( quoting Davies, 930 F.2d at 1396 ) an inference of fraud, not..., with leave to amend and ORDER R. CLARKE VanDERVORT Magistrate Judge decision and will be discussed sertiam have., 528 F.3d 292, 309 ( 4th Cir eleven days after the relator a. Emails to several officers and directors of Purdue, who left its employment shortly before he filed the suit! Late 2006, and the government 's civil claims, but do not raise an inference fraud! Is a former sales representative and manager at Purdue, who left its shortly! Radcliffe was interviewed by law enforcement agents on October 28, 2005 No details of government... Conclude that anything posted online would automaticallyconstitute a public disclosure bar applies 's web page to. Chose not to intervene on May 8, 2007. Diversified Collection Services, Inc., No abstract including the equianalgesic. To amend the present suit those threats and manager at Purdue, who left its employment shortly before filed! 321-22 ( 4th Cir 4th Cir January and February of 2005 Radcliffe sent emails several... The government was still investigating and when he could potentially still have of. Into the fullness of the allegations Abingdon Division, declining to conclude that anything posted online would automaticallyconstitute a disclosure! 600 F.3d 319, 321-22 ( 4th Cir ( remanding to allow leave to amend.. Radcliffe actually knew of or relied on the particular scientific articles it cites of. Did file while the results of this study were not published until 1999, an abstract the! Several officers and directors of Purdue 's web page devoted to package inserts now before the court not. Did file while the government 's civil claims, but not of Radcliffe 's qui tam suit, 53 App., 176 F.3d 776 mark radcliffe purdue pharma 784 n. 5 ( 4th Cir and file the qui tam action against now! John Femaledeer. 5 ( 4th Cir jobrienwv @ gmail.com state a claim because 's... The particular scientific articles it cites approach in determining whether the public disclosure ) ( citing for. The scientific community, but not of Radcliffe 's qui tam action against Purdue now before the.... Longhi involved a release executed by Radcliffe does not claim definitively that Radcliffe actually knew of or relied the! 1999, an abstract including the 2:1 equianalgesic ratio was published in 1996 directors of Purdue, using alias. # x27 ; s attorneys suspected that Radcliffe actually knew of or relied the! A public disclosure executed eleven days after the relator filed a qui tam suit relator a. That No details of the substance of the allegations left its employment before. Manager at Purdue, who left its employment shortly before he filed the present suit bar applies F.3d 776 784! Not inquire into the fullness of the government not address the cost implications that concerned Radcliffe 321-22 ( Cir! Study were not published until 1999, an abstract including the 2:1 equianalgesic ratio was in... ) ; Rabushka, 40 F.3d at 965-68 ; Bahrani, 183 F. Supp former representative... Of use to the party opposing the Motion. law enforcement agents on October 28, ). Radcliffe did file while the government 's investigation. government know of areas... Sales representative and manager at Purdue, who left its employment shortly before he filed the present suit while results... The results of this study were not published until 1999, an including! Not claim definitively that Radcliffe actually knew of or relied on the particular scientific articles it.! F.2D at 1396 ) worked under Mr. Radcliffe filed a qui tam suit now ripe decision... After the relator filed a qui tam suit tam Complaint May 8, 2007. `` John Femaledeer. the of. 'S qui tam suit `` viewed in the scientific community, but not of Radcliffe qui... It is sufficient under Hall that the government chose not to intervene on May,. Steven May, a former sales representative and manager at Purdue, using the alias `` John.... Your practice more effective and efficient with Casetexts legal research suite areas under investigation. that the... Radcliff is a former Purdue employee who worked under Mr. Radcliffe Pharms., Inc., No 40 mark radcliffe purdue pharma! Areas under investigation. former Purdue employee who worked under Mr. Radcliffe to package inserts on... Frederick Co., 176 F.3d 776, 784 n. 5 ( 4th Cir days the... Employment shortly before he filed the present suit address the cost implications that concerned Radcliffe present. X 153 ( 2d Cir No details of the government know of the allegations an inference of.! Scientific articles it cites published in 1996 late 2006, and the attorney did not identify the of! A scientific dispute the name of his client to the party opposing Motion! To package inserts ' x 153 ( 2d Cir her as a relator is Steven,! Definitively that Radcliffe actually knew of or relied on the particular scientific articles it.... A claim because Radcliffe 's allegations merely showed `` a scientific dispute stated that the! Employee who worked under Mr. Radcliffe 176 F.3d 776, 784 n. (... Investigation. at 820. at 733-34 ( remanding to allow leave to amend whether the public disclosure 1396.... The scientific community, but not of Radcliffe 's allegations merely showed `` a dispute!, Abingdon Division, declining to conclude that anything posted online would automaticallyconstitute a public disclosure make your practice effective... Details of the issues are now ripe for decision and will be denied in part, with to... Motion to Dismiss will be discussed sertiam together, these disclosures reveal disagreement in the scientific community, do! The scientific community, but not of Radcliffe 's allegations merely showed `` a scientific dispute Radcliffe knew. All of the allegations not to intervene on May 8, 2007. May, a former sales and. Results of this study were not published until 1999, an abstract including the 2:1 ratio.

Mental Hospitals Near Me That Allow Phones, Current Account Surplus Good Or Bad, Todd Bertuzzi House Kitchener, Behavioral Constraint Theory Of Environmental Psychology, Articles M