Courts Narrowing Liability Under False Claims Act
Attorneys Rachel Hunt and JP Ellison (Hyman, Phelps & McNamara) cite a Pennsylvania federal court decision as further proof that courts have been narrowing situations in which they will find liability under the False Claims Act (FCA) due to a Supreme Court decision in United Health Services v. United States ex rel Escobar. Writing in their firm’s FDA Law Blog, they say the Pennsylvania decision dismissed a case by whistleblowers attempting to enforce a regulatory scheme via the FCA.
Two whistleblowers alleged that Dr. Reddy’s Labs manufactured and pharmacists dispensed prescription drugs that did not comply with federal laws requiring child resistant packaging. Although the plaintiffs brought a total of 34 claims, the attorneys write, the court focused on the four concerning FCA violations and found that they failed to plead sufficient facts to allege violations of that act.
“This case represents another example of how Escobar has changed the landscape of FCA analysis in narrowing the instances where a court will impose liability,” the post concludes. “This case also signals an important shift to deference towards regulatory agencies in an effort to minimize situations in which companies experience regulatory consequences and then find themselves involved in litigation over the same conduct.”