Sixth Circuit Reinforces "Stringent" Pleading Standard in False Claims Act Cases
The Sixth Circuit's recent decision in U.S. ex rel. Ibanez v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. reinforced Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b)'s requirement that plaintiffs plead fraud "with particularity" in False Claims Act cases. This "stringent" standard prevents broad, costly discovery in insufficiently pled FCA cases.
In Ibanez, former employees alleged that pharmaceutical companies encouraged providers to prescribe a drug for "off-label" uses. They alleged a four-step chain: (1) the defendants promoted the drug for off-label uses; (2) physicians thus prescribed the drug; (3) patients filled the prescriptions; and (4) pharmacies submitted claims to the government for reimbursement.
The Sixth Circuit affirmed dismissal of these claims for two reasons. First, the employees failed to allege with particularity a representative claim for payment. As courts throughout the country have repeatedly held, a False Claims Act claim may proceed only if a claim for payment is submitted; an allegedly fraudulent scheme is not enough. While the Sixth Circuit recognizes an exception at the pleading stage if a party has "specific personal knowledge" related to billing that supports "a strong inference that a false claim was submitted," the relators were sales representatives, not billers, so they lacked such knowledge. Second, although the employees tried to amend their complaint to add purported representative claims, no claim sufficiently described each link in the causal chain. Some claims, for example, failed to connect prescribing physicians to the defendants' promotion, or failed to show that prescriptions were for off-label uses.
Looking forward, other courts can use the Sixth Circuit's approach to apply Rule 9(b) to complex fraudulent schemes, particularly those with "a long chain of causal links." Critically, the complaint must "identify a representative false claim that was actually submitted to the government" and describe "each step" in the causal chain "with particularity." Merely describing certain elements of an alleged fraudulent scheme is insufficient.
The opinion also is notable because it emphasized "just what an awkward vehicle" the False Claims Act is "for punishing off-label promotion schemes." Without addressing the issue in detail, the court suggested that the False Claims Act may be the wrong tool to regulate off-label drug promotion, despite its repeated use by relators and the government.
For further information, please contact your principal Firm representative or one of the lawyers listed below. General email messages may be sent using our "Contact Us" form, which can be found at www.jonesday.com/contactus/.
Stephen G. Sozio
B. Kurt Copper
Jones Day publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information purposes only and may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the Firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please use our "Contact Us" form, which can be found on our website at www.jonesday.com. The mailing of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Firm.