Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-v2bm5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-13T13:56:15.583Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Fraud and Abuse: United States ex rel Merena v. SmithKline Beecham Corp.; United States ex rel Spear v. SmithKline Beecham Clinical Lab.; United States ex rel Grossenbacher v. SmithKline Beecham Clinical Lab.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Allyson Behm
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that when quitam relators file a multi-claim complaint under the Fraudulent Claims Act (FCA), their share of the proceeds must be based on an individual analysis of each claim. More importantly, the court held that relators are not entitled to any portion of the settlement of a specific claim if that claim was subject to dismissal under section 3730(e)(4) Relator Merena filed a quitam suit against his employer, SmithKline Beecham (SKB), claiming, among other things, that SKB defrauded the government by billing for laboratory tests that were not performed, paying illegal kickbacks to health care providers, and participating in an “automated chemistry” scheme. Soon thereafter, additional relators filed suit.

Type
Article
Information
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , Volume 28 , Issue 2 , Summer 2000 , pp. 191 - 193
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 2000

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

No. 98-1497, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 2948 (3d Cir. Feb. 29, 2000). These cases were consolidated, thus the citations in this article will refer to the Merena case.Google Scholar
No. 98-1498, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 2948 (3d Cir. Feb. 29, 2000).Google Scholar
No. 98-1499, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 2948 (3d Cir. Feb. 29, 2000).Google Scholar
31 U.S.C.S. § 3729 et seq (2000).Google Scholar
See Merena, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 2948, at *29.Google Scholar
See id.Google Scholar
31 U.S.C.S. § 3730(e)(4) (2000). This subsection states that no court has jurisdiction over actions based on certain publicly disclosed information unless the action was brought by the Attorney General or the original source of the information.Google Scholar
Merena, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 2948, at *16.Google Scholar
See id.Google Scholar
Id. at *21.Google Scholar
31 U.S.C.S. § 3730(d)(1) (2000).Google Scholar
Merena, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 2948, at *25.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
See id. at *26.Google Scholar
See id. at *27.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
See id. at *30.Google Scholar
See id. at *33.Google Scholar