Eighth Circuit Dismisses Whistleblower's Suit Finding Facts Were Already Publicly Disclosed

18 August 2014 Health Care Law Today Blog

In an August 7, 2014 opinion, the Eighth Circuit upheld the dismissal of a whistleblower’s suit alleging that a number of pain pump device makers had violated the False Claims Act (FCA) by marketing their pain pumps for harmful off-label uses. United States ex rel. Paulos v. Stryker Corp. et al.,8th Cir., No. 13-2509, 8/7/14. The court unanimously found that the relator’s claims were barred under the FCA’s public disclosure bar and that the relator didn’t qualify as an original source under the FCA. In doing so, the Eighth Circuit adopted the majority view on this issue, in conflict with the Fourth Circuit.

The relator was a surgeon with an orthopedic/sports medicine group practice in Florida. The relator initially filed his complaint in 2011, alleging that the device companies marketed their devices for off-label or unapproved uses, specifically for encouraging the placement of pain pumps directly into patients’ joint spaces after orthopedic procedures. Unlike most pain pump litigants who have raised product liability suits, relator here alleged that this marketing led to payment of false claims by government health programs, including Medicare and Medicaid. The federal government declined to intervene in December 2012 and the complaint was unsealed.

The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri dismissed relator’s complaint in June 2013, concluding that his allegations about the use of the pain pumps in the space within joints were widely publicized before he met with the government and that he wasn’t an “original source” of the publicly disclosed information.

On appeal, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the dismissal: “Finding no meaningful distinction between the public disclosures and [relator’s] claims, we conclude the district court did not err in finding a public disclosure sufficient to meet § 3730(e)(4)(A) [the public disclosure bar of the False Claims Act].”

The appeals court also found the district court correctly concluded that relator was not an original source because his “proposed independent knowledge [could not] be said to ‘materially add[] to the publicly disclosed allegations or transactions.’” In reaching this conclusion, the Eighth Circuit adopted the majority rule dictating that a qui tam suit is based upon a public disclosure whenever the allegations in the suit and in the disclosure are the same, regardless of where the relator obtained his information. This test stands in contrast to the recent narrower reading of the public disclosure provision adopted by the Fourth Circuit, (United States ex rel. Ahumada v. NISH, et al., 4th Cir., No. 13-1672, 6/23/14), which asked whether the relator’s allegations were “actually derived from the public disclosure itself.” 

In light of this split among the circuit courts, we will continue to monitor for and blog about any new developments.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services