Suppressed v. Suppressed
Filing
59
MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order Signed by the Honorable John Robert Blakey on 3/14/2019. Mailed notice(gel, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
STATE OF ILLINOIS
ex rel. MICHAEL THORNTON
Plaintiff,
Case No. 16-cv-7142
v.
PFIZER INC and HOSPIRA, INC.,
Judge John Robert Blakey
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Relator and Plaintiff Michael Thornton (Relator) has brought a qui tam action
under the False Claims Act (FCA), 31 U.S.C. § 3729 et seq., (Count I) and its Illinois
counterpart, the Illinois False Claims Act (ICFA), 740 Ill. Comp. Stat. 175/1 et seq.,
(Count II) on behalf of the United States and the State of Illinois. Relator sues
Defendants Pfizer, Inc., and Hospira, Inc., alleging that Defendants knowingly
mischarged Medicare and/or Medicaid for defective medical devices. [35] ¶ 1. Relator
also brings an FCA retaliation claim, 31 U.S.C. § 3730(h), alleging that Defendants
retaliated against him after he attempted to prevent FCA violations (Count III). Id.
¶ 2. Relator brings an Illinois Whistleblower Act claim, 740 Ill. Comp. Stat. 174/1 et
seq., under this same theory (Count IV). Id.
Relator filed his Amended Complaint (AC) [35] on May 24, 2018. Defendants
have moved to dismiss all claims under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and
1
9(b). [41]. For the reasons explained below, this Court grants Defendants’ motion.
I.
Background
A.
The Parties
The federal government and state of Illinois jointly fund and administer the
Medicare and Medicaid programs in Illinois. [35] ¶ 9. Pfizer is one of the world’s
leading designers, manufacturers, and distributors of health care products. Id. ¶ 10.
It sells its products to both public and private hospitals, pharmacies, home healthcare
providers, other medical organizations, and private citizens enrolled in Medicare
and/or Medicaid, and therefore requests payment and receives funds (either directly
or through healthcare providers) from the U.S. and/or Illinois. Id.
Pfizer is the parent company of Hospira, which is one of the world’s leading
providers of infusion pumps and other medical technologies. Id. ¶¶ 10, 12. Hospira
also sells its products to public and private hospitals, pharmacies, home healthcare
providers, other medical organizations, and private citizens enrolled in Medicare
and/or Medicaid, and thus similarly requests payment and receives funds (either
directly or through healthcare providers) from the U.S. and/or Illinois. Id. ¶ 12. Both
Pfizer and Hospira are considered importers and/or manufacturers, as well as
distributors, for purposes of U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations.
21 C.F.R. §§ 803.3, 806.2; 21 C.F.R. Part 7, 21.
Hospira employed Relator in a quality assurance role from June 2013 until
February 2017, when Defendants sold its infusion systems business to ICU Medical
Inc. [35] ¶ 7.
2
B.
Hospira’s Relationship with Q Core
Throughout Relator’s employment with Hospira, the company maintained an
international distribution agreement and business relationship with Q Core Medical
Ltd (Q Core). Id. ¶ 16; [35-1] at 2−4. Q Core is an Israeli company focused on
developing, manufacturing, and marketing infusion pumps. [35] ¶ 17. One of its
products is the Sapphire Multi-Therapy Volumetric Infusion Pump (Sapphire pump);
a “technologically advanced compact and lightweight infusion system.” [35-1] at 2.
According to Relator, the impetus behind Hospira’s relationship with Q Core
began in August 2012, when the FDA issued a warning letter to Hospira about quality
problems at Hospira’s Costa Rica manufacturing plant. [35] ¶ 18. Hospira made
most of its infusion pumps at its Costa Rica plant. Id. In November 2012, the FDA
followed-up with an import ban, which prevented Hospira from importing and selling
infusion pumps manufactured at the Costa Rica facility. Id. ¶ 19.
In January of 2013, while the FDA’s import ban remained in place, Hospira
entered an international distribution agreement with Q Core for its “Sapphire
platform,” which included Sapphire pumps and their accompanying microbore set.
Id. ¶ 21; [35-1] at 2−4.
Following regulatory clearance by the FDA, Hospira
introduced the Sapphire pumps and microbore sets (collectively Sapphire sets) to the
U.S. Market in October 2013. [35] ¶ 20; [35-1] at 2−4. 1
According to Relator, by “designating Hospira as a distributor and Q Core as
A Sapphire pump cost approximately $3,500 in 2015, and a microbore set currently ranges between
$5 and $25 per unit; sets are typically purchased in high volume orders, as industry standard
recommends sets be replaced every 96 hours. [35] ¶¶ 29−30.
1
3
the device manufacturer, Hospira was able to avoid the FDA import ban and compete
in the U.S. marketplace for infusion pumps.” [35] ¶ 21. He alleges that Hospira and
Q Core operated as partners and co-manufacturers of the Sapphire pumps, sharing
project managers, design and software engineers, regulatory personnel, commercial,
and marketing executives at the manufacturing level. Id. ¶¶ 22−24.
C.
Relator’s Product Allegations
Relator first learned about the Sapphire sets in December 2014, when Hospira
promoted him to “Senior Manager Sapphire Quality Systems,” a new position
intended to “provide quality assurance assistance and oversight with respect to
Hospira’s relationship with Q Core, and its marketing and distribution of Q Core’s
Sapphire products.”
Id. ¶ 31.
Beginning in February 2015, Relator alleges he
discovered several quality assurance issues related to Q Core and its Sapphire
products after reviewing customer complaints. 2 Id. ¶ 33. Specifically, Relator alleges
that Defendants:
•
Engaged in a Silent Recall of Defective Power Cords. See id. ¶¶ 35−49;
[35-1] at 5−7. Relator claims that Hospira, in an effort to avoid further FDA
scrutiny, failed to notify the public and FDA about: (1) defective power cords
that sparked and fell apart as customers used them and would not properly
charge; and (2) Q Core and Hospira’s decision to replace the original power
cords with new cords. Relator claims that Hospira’s failure to inform the public
and FDA about the defective power cords, and its subsequent decision to
Hospira kept customer complaints related to Sapphire pumps in a database, from which it ran
monthly reports, which it shared with various employees, including Relator. [35] ¶ 34.
2
4
characterize the new power cords as an enhancement rather than a
replacement, constituted a silent recall in violation of FDA regulations, 21
C.F.R. §§ 7.40, 7.46, 7.49, 803.1, 803.10, 803.20, 803.40, 803.50, 803.53, 806.10.
Relator also claims that the new power cords failed to correct the problems
associated with the original cords.
•
Engaged in a Silent Recall through Repeated Software Revisions. See
[35] ¶¶ 50−65. Relator claims that Hospira, in an effort to avoid further FDA
scrutiny, failed to notify the public and FDA about: (1) Sapphire pumps
disabling themselves due to faulty air-in-line and cassette misplaced alarms;
(2) Sapphire pumps not properly resetting after these false alarms, which
resulted in patients not receiving their medication in proper dosage or in a
timely fashion; (3) Sapphire pumps over-and under-delivering proper dosages
of medication; and (4) Q Core’s and Hospira’s decision to correct these issues
with 55 software revisions to the Sapphire pumps over the course of four years.
Relator claims Hospira’s failure to inform the public and FDA about the false
alarm and dosage problems, and its subsequent decision to characterize the
software revisions as enhancements rather than corrections, constituted a
silent recall in violation of FDA regulations, 21 C.F.R. §§ 7.40, 7.46, 7.49, 803.1,
803.10, 803.20, 803.40, 803.50, 803.53, 806.10. Relator also claims that the
software revisions failed to correct these performance issues.
•
Engaged in a Silent Recall by Acquiescing to Q Core’s Request to
Return and/or Destroy Microbore Sets. See [35] ¶¶ 66−76. Relator claims
5
that in late 2014, Q Core instructed Hospira to place 57 batches of microbore
sets “on hold” because it discovered the batches were prone to leaking
medication. Because Hospira had already sold and distributed significant
quantities of those 57 batches to customers, Relator claims that he and other
Hospira employees repeatedly informed Q Core that a hold would constitute
an expansion of an existing Field Safety Notice (FSN)/Recall. Nevertheless,
Hospira’s Corporate Vice President of Quality for the Device Organization,
Chris Ganser, signed off on documentation allowing those microbore sets to be
either returned to Q Core or destroyed. Hospira never issued an FSN or
otherwise informed the public or FDA about the microbore sets, and thus
Relator alleges it engaged in a silent recall in violation of FDA regulations, 21
C.F.R. §§ 7.40, 7.46, 7.49, 803.1, 803.10, 803.20, 803.40, 803.50, 803.53, 806.10.
In addition to these product quality issues, Relator also alleges that Hospira
created marketing materials that included false information to: (1) help sell the
Sapphire pumps; and (2) offer “alternate messaging” around the defects. [35] ¶¶
25−26.
D.
Relator’s Retaliation Allegations
Beginning in February or March 2015, Relator brought his concerns regarding
the power cords, software, and microbore sets to Hospira’s Senior Management team,
including Ganser. Id. ¶ 77. In April 2015, Relator completed a site visit of Q Core’s
facility in Tel Aviv, Israel; he alleges that during the visit, Q Core’s President, Tally
Eitan, told him that, “we know the quality of our product is bad, but we are not doing
6
a Field Action.” Id. ¶ 78. Upon his return, Relator provided a report of his findings
on Q Core’s lack of quality assurance procedures to Mr. Ganser, and over the following
months raised his concerns with: Hospira’s Vice President of Medical Devices, David
Endicott; Hospira’s Vice President of Medical, Dr. Roee Lazebnik; Hospira’s Vice
President of Alliance Management and Franchise, Chad Jansen; Hospira’s Vice
President of Quality Assurance, Joe Sener; and Hospira’s Vice President of
Regulatory Affairs, Amy Giertych. Id. ¶¶ 80−85. None of these individuals addressed
Relator’s concerns. See, e.g., id.
With respect to the microbore set problem, beginning in May 2015, Jansen
repeatedly requested that Relator “confirm the data used to inform Q Core about the
steps that were needed to resolve the . . . issue.” Id. ¶¶ 86−87. When Relator
confirmed the data’s accuracy, he claims Jansen ignored it and misled others to
believe “Relator was incorrect.” Id. ¶ 87. On June 5, 2015, Relator and Jansen spoke
again about the microbore sets over the phone. Id. ¶ 88. At this time, Relator
informed Jansen of the applicable FDA regulations and asked whether he should
bring his concerns to Endicott or Michael Ball, Hospira’s Chief Executive Officer. Id.
Shortly after this call, Ganser called Relator to reprimand him for suggesting
he would contact Endicott and Ball. Id. ¶ 89. Less than two weeks later, on June 18,
2015, Hospira reassigned Relator from his position as Senior Manager of Sapphire
Quality Systems. Id. ¶ 90. At the time of his reassignment, Ganser asked Relator,
“What would you do [about the Q Core problems] if you were in my position?” Id. ¶
91. Relator answered, “We are the ones selling the pumps. I would do the right thing.
7
I would inform the FDA and public.” Id. Ganser responded by telling Relator he now
“no longer had to lose sleep over Q Core.” Id.
When Hospira reassigned Relator, it told him he would fill the “Director Lake
Forest Quality” position. Id. ¶ 92. But, it instead gave Relator the lesser title of
“Senior Manager Lake Forest Quality.” Id. Relator claims that his reassignment
constituted a demotion, as his new job duties “are significantly less than those he
performed as Senior Manager [of] Sapphire Quality Systems.” Id. ¶ 93.
E.
The Present Litigation
Pfizer acquired Hospira on September 3, 2015. Id. ¶ 96. On September 14,
2015, Relator filed complaints with Pfizer’s Compliance Department, raising his
quality assurance and public safety concerns related to Q Core and the Sapphire
products, as well as retaliation. Id. ¶ 97. In June 2016, Pfizer informed Relator that
it found no evidence to substantiate his retaliation claim; it did not address his
quality assurance and public safety concerns. Id. ¶¶ 99−100.
Relator originally filed suit in this Court under seal in July 2016. [1]. The
United States and the State of Illinois declined to intervene on January 10, 2018.
[15]. Relator served Defendants with his original complaint on February 21, 2018,
[19] [20], and Defendants moved to dismiss in response on April 23, 2018 [32]. Relator
elected to amend, and this Court thus denied the motion without prejudice and
without reaching the merits. [34]. Relator filed his AC [35] on May 24, 2018, in
response to which Defendants filed the motion to dismiss [41] now at issue.
8
II.
Legal Standard
A.
Motion to Dismiss Standard
To survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint must provide
a “short and plain statement of the claim” showing that the pleader merits relief, Fed.
R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), so Defendants have “fair notice” of the claim “and the grounds upon
which it rests,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley
v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). A complaint must also contain “sufficient factual
matter” to state a facially plausible claim to relief—one that “allows the court to draw
the reasonable inference” that the defendant committed the alleged misconduct.
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). This
plausibility standard “asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has
acted unlawfully.” Williamson v. Curran, 714 F.3d 432, 436 (7th Cir. 2013). Thus,
“threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory
statements, do not suffice.” Limestone Dev. Corp. v. Vill. of Lemont, 520 F.3d 797,
803 (7th Cir. 2008).
In evaluating a complaint, this Court accepts all well-pleaded allegations as
true and draws all reasonable inferences in Plaintiff’s favor. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
This Court does not, however, accept legal conclusions as true. Brooks v. Ross, 578
F.3d 574, 581 (7th Cir. 2009). On a motion to dismiss, this Court may consider the
complaint itself, documents attached to the complaint, documents central to the
complaint and to which the complaint refers, and information properly subject to
judicial notice. Williamson, 714 F.3d at 436.
9
B.
Rule 9(b) Standard
Additionally, the FCA “is an anti-fraud statute and claims under it are subject
to the heightened pleading requirements of Rule 9(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.” United States ex rel. Gross. v. AIDS Research All.-Chi., 415 F.3d 601, 604
(7th Cir. 2005). Rule 9(b) requires that in all averments of fraud or mistake, the
circumstances constituting fraud or mistake shall be stated “with particularity.” In
adding “flesh to the bones of the word particularity,” the Seventh Circuit has “often
incanted that a plaintiff ordinarily must describe the who, what, when, where, and
how of the fraud—the first paragraph of any newspaper story.” Pirelli Armstrong
Tire Corp. Retiree Med. Benefits Trust v. Walgreen Co., 631 F.3d 436, 441−42 (7th Cir.
2011) (internal quotations omitted). Ultimately, a plaintiff must inject “precision and
some measure of substantiation” into fraud allegations. United States ex rel. Presser
v. Acacia Mental Health Clinic, LLC, 836 F.3d 770, 776 (7th Cir. 2016) (internal
quotations omitted).
Rule 9(b)’s heightened pleading requirements serve three main purposes: (1)
protecting a defendant’s reputation from harm; (2) minimizing “strike suits” and
“fishing expeditions”; and (3) providing notice of the claim to the adverse party. Id.
Fair notice requires a plaintiff who pleads fraud to “‘reasonably notify the defendants
of their purported role in the scheme.’” Id. at 778 (quoting Midwest Grinding Co. v.
Spitz, 976 F.2d 1016, 1020 (7th Cir. 1992)); see also Guar. Co. of N. Am. v.
Moecherville Water Dist., N.F.P., No. 06-cv-6040, 2007 WL 2225834, at *2 (N.D. Ill.
July 26, 2007) (“The purpose of the more restrictive pleading standard is to ensure
10
that the accused party is given adequate notice of the specific activity that the
plaintiff claims constituted the fraud, so that the accused party may file an effective
responsive pleading.”).
III.
Analysis
Relator attempts to prove his AC allegations under several FCA theories.
Specifically, he argues that: (1) Defendants’ fraudulent conduct satisfies an implied
false certification theory, [48] at 7–8; (2) Defendants’ fraudulent conduct satisfies an
express false certification theory, id. at 7; and (3) Defendants fraudulently induced
third parties to submit false claims, id. at 5–7. 3
A.
FCA & IFCA Standard
To state a claim under the FCA, relators must show that Defendants
“knowingly present[ed], or cause[d] to be presented, a false or fraudulent claim for
payment or approval, 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1)(A), or “knowingly ma[de], use[d], or
cause[d] to be made or used, a false record or statement material to a false or
fraudulent claim,” id. § 3729(a)(1)(B). A “claim” under the statute “includes direct
requests to the Government for payment as well as reimbursement requests made to
the recipients of federal funds under federal benefits programs.” Universal Health
Servs., Inc. v. U.S. ex rel. Escobar, 136 S. Ct. 1989, 1996 (Escobar II) (citing 21 U.S.C.
Relator’s AC also appears to allege a “worthless services” theory. See [35] ¶¶ 37, 107, 115.
Defendants address this theory in their motion to dismiss, arguing that Relator’s allegations of
“diminished quality” are insufficient to invoke the “worthless services” theory. [42] at 9−10. Relator
fails to respond to this argument and does not address his “worthless services” theory in his opposition
memorandum. See generally [48]. Thus, he concedes this argument, and this Court grants that portion
of Defendants’ motion to dismiss as unopposed. See Mitsui Sumitomo Ins. Co., Ltd. v. Moore Transp.,
Inc., 500 F. Supp. 2d 942, 950−51 (N.D. Ill. 2007) (“The law of the Seventh Circuit is clear: ‘Perfunctory
or undeveloped arguments are waived.’” (internal citation omitted) (collecting cases)).
3
11
§ 3729(b)(2)(a)). Here, two theories of falsity under the FCA remain relevant: false
certification and implied false certification—“in essence, falsity resulting from
express misrepresentations or from misrepresentation by omission.” United States
ex rel. Lisitza v. Par Pharm. Cos., 276 F. Supp. 3d 779, 789 (N.D. Ill. 2017).
The FCA’s scienter and materiality requirements are “rigorous.” Id. at 2002.
“Knowingly” means “that a person, with respect to information—(i) has actual
knowledge of the information; (ii) acts in deliberate ignorance of the truth or falsity
of the information; or (iii) acts in reckless disregard of the truth or falsity of the
information . . . .” 31 U.S.C. § 3729(b)(1); see also United States ex rel. Sheet Metal
Workers Int’l Ass’n v. Horning Invs., LLC, 828 F.3d 587, 593 (7th Cir. 2016). The
knowledge requirement does not, however, require “proof of specific intent to
defraud.” 31 U.S.C. § 3729(b)(1)(B). The term “material” means “having a natural
tendency to influence, or be capable of influencing, the payment or receipt of money
or property.” Id. § 3729(b)(4). Moreover, a “misrepresentation about compliance with
a statutory, regulatory, or contractual requirement must be material to the
Government’s payment decision in order to be actionable under the False Claims
Act.” Escobar, 136 S. Ct. at 1996.
Courts evaluate IFCA claims under the same standards as those applicable to
FCA claims. United States ex rel. Grenadyor v. Ukrainian Vill. Pharmacy, Inc., 772
F.3d 1102, 1109 (7th Cir. 2014); Cunliffe v. Wright, 51 F. Supp. 3d 721, 740 (N.D. Ill.
2014). Thus, this Court will apply its FCA analysis to both Counts I and II.
12
B.
Relator’s Implied Certification Theory
This Court turns first to Relator’s implied certification theory.
Under
the
implied
certification
theory,
when
“a
defendant
makes
representations in submitting a claim but omits its violations of statutory, regulatory,
or contractual requirements, those omissions can be a basis for liability if they render
the defendant’s representations misleading with respect to the goods or services
provided.” Escobar II, 136 S. Ct. at 1999. In other words, the implied certification
theory “treats a bill submitted to the government as an implicit assurance that the
bill is a lawful claim for payment,” an assurance that becomes false “if the firm
submitting the bill knows” that it is not “entitled to payment.” Grenadyor, 772 F.3d
at 1106.
There are two conditions to this theory: “first, the claim does not merely
request payment, but also makes specific representations about the goods or services
provided; and second, the defendant’s failure to disclose noncompliance with material
statutory, regulatory, or contractual requirements makes those representations
misleading half-truths.” United States ex rel. Nelson v. Sanford-Brown, Ltd., 840
F.3d 445, 447 (7th Cir. 2016) (Sanford-Brown II) (citing Escobar II, 136 S. Ct. at
2001). In the absence of any specific misrepresentation on a claim’s face, relators
may identify omitted information that renders the description of a good or product
misleading. Lisitza, 276 F. Supp. 3d at 798; Midwest Commerce Banking Co. v.
Elkhart City Ctr., 4 F.3d 521, 524 (7th Cir. 1993) (“Omissions are actionable as
implied representations when the circumstances are such that a failure to
13
communicate a fact induces a belief in its opposite.”).
The Supreme Court has
cautioned that the implied certification theory still imposes the FCA’s “rigorous”
scienter and materiality requirements. Escobar II, 136 S. Ct. at 2002.
Here, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated FDA regulations that govern
reporting recalls, removals, corrections, and other adverse events, which in turn
caused the Government to make “payments for claims that otherwise would not have
been allowed.” [35] ¶ 106. Defendants respond that: (1) Relator has not identified
any specific reimbursement claim, much less identified a false statement or other
fraudulent misrepresentation that Defendants made to the Government; and (2)
regardless, the alleged regulatory violations are not material to any Government
payment decision. [42] at 6, 7.
1.
Relator Fails to Plead Falsity with Particularity
Relator’s implied certification theory fails at the outset; Relator cannot
establish the “specific representation” condition, because he fails to allege false claims
with sufficient particularity under Rule 9(b). In fact, Relator fails to allege a single
claim submitted to the Government, let alone that any claim made a specific
representation—whether an affirmative false statement or omission—about the
Sapphire sets. See generally [35]. Instead, he alleges that Defendants sell their
products to hospitals, pharmacies, private citizens, and other medical organizations,
“and therefore request[] payment and receive[] funds . . . from the U.S. and/or
Illinois.” [35] ¶¶ 10, 12. But, even if Defendants submitted claims for the Sapphire
sets—a fact that Relator does not expressly allege—it is well-settled in the Seventh
14
Circuit that “a simple demand for payment does not constitute a specific
representation about the goods and services provided.” Lisitza, 276 F. Supp. 3d at
796, 798–99 (internal quotations omitted) (finding that there is “little basis to infer
that a pharmacy’s Medicaid reimbursement claim constitutes a representation that
the drug for which reimbursement is sought was the drug originally prescribed for
the patient” given the “plethora of state laws and regulations that govern the
dispensing of prescription medications”); see also Sanford Brown II 840 F.3d at 447
(summary judgment finding that although relator alleged that defendant submitted
claims certifying compliance with all applicable laws, when in fact it had violated
provisions of Title IV of the Higher Education Act, there was no proof that defendant
made any representations in connection with the claims for payment; instead, the
defendants simply requested a disbursement).
Relator responds to this fatal shortcoming with several arguments. First, he
argues that he has sufficiently alleged that Defendants violated various FDA
regulations, and thus that they made “omissions of relevant consequence” for
purposes of implied false certification. [48] at 8. But, the Seventh Circuit has made
clear that even under an implied certification theory, “it is not enough to allege, or
even prove, that [Defendants] engaged in a practice that violated a federal regulation.
Violating a regulation is not synonymous with filing a false claim.” Grenadyor, 772
F.3d at 1107 (explaining that to comply with 9(b), relator alleging a kickback scheme
under the FCA “would have had to allege either that the pharmacy submitted a claim
to Medicare (or Medicaid) on behalf of a specific patient who had received a kickback,
15
or at least name a Medicare patient who had received a kickback.”). Absent an
allegation of a single claim, this Court cannot begin to determine whether
Defendants’ alleged regulatory violations misrepresented or omitted information
about the Sapphire sets under the FCA.
Relator also argues that he does not need to have actually witnessed or had
direct access to Defendants’ specific request for payment and fraudulent paperwork
to satisfy particularity.
See [48] at 4 (citing United States ex rel. Geschrey v.
Generations Healthcare, LLC, 922 F. Supp. 2d 695, 705 (N.D. Ill. 2012)). But, a
relator must still “show, in detail, the nature of the charge, so that vague and
unsubstantiated accusations of fraud do not lead to costly discovery and public
obloquy.” Id. (citing United States ex rel. Lusby v. Rolls-Royce Corp., 570 F.3d 849,
854−55 (7th Cir. 2009)). Relator’s AC thus fails under Rule 9(b) not because he failed
to witness or have direct access to a false claim, but because he does not allege the
submission of any claim relating to the Sapphire sets, therefore offering this Court
and Defendants no explanation as to the “nature of the charge.” Id.
For example, in Geschrey, the court reasoned that “the fact that most of
[defendant’s] patients were receiving government benefits and [defendant] billed
Medicare and Medicaid at a per diem rate for each covered patient create[d] a strong
inference that bills for the care of patients as to whom fraud ha[d] been alleged were
submitted to the government.” Id.; see also Lusby, 570 F.3d at 854 (finding the fact
that defendant’s contracts with the Government required it to submit, with each
request for payment, a specific form with specific representations about the relevant
16
goods’ quality established falsity at the motion to dismiss stage). In contrast, Relator
gives this Court no information from which to draw such an inference, such as
whether and how Defendants ever submitted claims to the Government for the
Sapphire sets. Again, without even a basic idea of what information a relevant claim
might contain, this Court cannot determine whether any specific representation or
omission rendered the Sapphire sets’ description misleading. See Grenadyor, 772
F.3d at 1106–07.
2.
Relator Fails to Establish Materiality
Even if Relator had pled falsity with sufficient particularity, Relator’s AC fails
to establish that the alleged omissions—Defendants’ regulatory violations—were
material to the Government’s decision to pay. 4 Sanford-Brown II, 840 F.3d at 447
(citing Escobar II, 136 S. Ct. at 2001).
Under the FCA, the term “material” means “having a natural tendency to
influence, or be capable of influencing, the payment or receipt of money or property”
and is not “too fact intensive” to decide at the motion to dismiss stage. 31 U.S.C. §
3729(b)(4); Escobar II, 136 S. Ct. at 2004, 2006 n.6. In implied certification cases,
“materiality looks to the effect on the likely or actual behavior of the recipient of the
Relator’s opposition also cites the “fraudulent conduct initiated by Hospira in mischaracterizing its
role as the co-developer, manufacturer and marketer of the Sapphire pumps” in support of all three of
its FCA theories. [48] at 6, 7, 8. Relator makes no attempt to explain how this allegation would render
any claim description of the Sapphire sets misleading, or why it would generally be relevant or
material to reimbursement. See generally [35], [48]. Nor does Relator allege that Defendants, as
opposed to Q Core, played any role in Q Core’s application for approval of the Sapphire pump, or that
Defendants made any affirmative representations or certifications as to their manufacturing role to
the Government. [35] ¶¶ 14−27. Therefore, this Court does not consider Hospira’s alleged role
mischaracterization with respect to Relator’s implied certification, express false certification, or
fraudulent inducement theories.
4
17
alleged misrepresentation,” therefore requiring specific facts showing that the
Government’s payment decision would likely or actually have been different if the
Government knew about the alleged regulatory violations. Escobar II, 136 S. Ct. at
2002; Sanford-Brown II, 840 F.3d at 447.
Notably, “if the Government pays a
particular claim in full despite its actual knowledge that certain requirements were
violated, that is very strong evidence that those requirements are not material.” Id.
at 2003; Sanford-Brown II, 840 F.3d at 447 (finding lack of materiality because
“federal agencies in this case have already examined [defendant] multiple times over
and concluded that neither administrative penalties nor termination was
warranted.”).
Here, Relator fails to allege that the Government’s decision to pay would have
been different had it known of the alleged regulatory violations.
Instead, his
materiality argument rests solely upon the allegation that the Government “made
payments for claims that otherwise would not have been allowed” because of the
Sapphire sets’ “defective and dangerous nature.”
[35] ¶¶ 106, 108.
But this
explanation cannot satisfy materiality under Rule 9(b). See United States ex rel. Roop
v. Hypoguard USA, Inc., 559 F.3d 818, 825 (8th Cir. 2009) (finding that “the
conclusory allegation that unidentified government agents would not have
reimbursed through Medicare individuals submitting claims [for the product] if they
had known of the defects and failure to comply with the rules and regulations of the
FDA does not comply with Rule 9(b)” and thus fails to establish materiality) (internal
citation omitted).
18
Further, Relator does not allege that the Government’s actual decision to pay
was different; specifically, he fails to allege any change to Government
reimbursement for Sapphire devices, or any regulatory action taken by the FDA, in
response to his suit. Escobar II. 136 S. Ct. at 2003; see also City of Chicago v. Purdue
Pharma L.P., 211 F. Supp. 3d 1058 (N.D. Ill. 2016) (holding that a requirement was
not material where the Government itself filed the FCA action but continued to pay
claims) (emphasis added). Moreover, Relator does not allege that compliance with
the applicable reporting and safety regulations is expressly or implicitly a condition
of payment, nor has he alleged that “the Government consistently refuses to pay
claims in the mine run of cases based on noncompliance” with the relevant
regulations—both of which are factors the Supreme Court identified as relevant to
materiality. Escobar II, 136 S. Ct. at 2003; see also United States ex rel. Rostholder
v. Omnicare, Inc., 745 F.3d 694, 701 (4th Cir. 2014), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 85 (2014)
(“[T]he Medicare and Medicaid statutes . . . do not require compliance with . . . FDA
safety regulations as a precondition to reimbursement.”). Because Relator does not
explain why Defendants’ purported regulatory violations are material to any
Government payment decision, this Court finds that Relator’s conclusory allegations
fail to satisfy Escobar II’s “demanding” materiality standard. 136 S. Ct. at 2003.
Because Relator has not pled falsity or materiality with the requisite
particularity under Rule 9(b), this Court rejects Relator’s implied false certification
theory.
19
C.
Relator’s Express False Certification & Fraudulent Inducement
Theories
Relator’s express false certification and fraudulent inducement theories fail for
the same reason as his implied false certification claim: he fails to plead falsity and
materiality with any particularity.
Under an express false certification theory, a relator must allege that
defendants affirmatively certified they had “complied with particular statutes or
regulations that were conditions of, or prerequisites to, government payment.”
United States ex rel. Absher v. Momence Meadows Nursing Ctr., Inc., 764 F.3d 699,
710–711 (7th Cir. 2014) (citing United States ex rel. Gross v. AIDS Research AllianceChi., 415 F.3d 601, 604 (7th Cir. 2005)); Harrison v. Westinghouse Savannah River
Co., 176 F.3d 776, 787 (4th Cir. 1999) (citing United States ex rel. Thompson v.
Columbia/HCA Healthcare Corp., 125 F.3d 899, 902 (5th Cir. 1997)).
And the
fraudulent inducement theory similarly requires a relator to show that defendants
made a “material” and “false” record or statement, as well as a “claim for the
government to pay money or forfeit money due.” United States ex rel. Miller v. Weston
Educ., Inc., 840 F.3d 494, 500 (8th Cir. 2016) (citing In re Baycol Prods. Litig., 732
F.3d 869, 875–76 (8th Cir. 2013)).
As discussed above, Relator fails to identify a single material record,
statement, claim, or certification to the Government, much less a false
representation, with particularity.
Thus, this Court must also reject Relator’s
express false certification and fraudulent inducement theories. Absent any viable
theory of FCA liability, and thus IFCA liability, this Court dismisses Counts I and II
20
of Relator’s AC [35].
D.
Relator’s Retaliation Claims
1.
Relator’s FCA Retaliation Claim
In Count III, Relator alleges that Defendants retaliated against him after he
attempted to prevent Defendants’ alleged FCA violations, thus violating the FCA’s
anti-retaliation provision, 31 U.S.C. § 3730(h). Id. ¶ 2. Specifically, Relator alleges
that he “repeatedly complained to Hospira’s senior management between February
and June 2015 about how its actions with respect to the [Sapphire sets] were a silent
recall in violation of FDA regulations.” Id. ¶ 119. Two weeks after Relator made
these complaints, Relator alleges that Hospira reassigned him from Senior Manager
of Sapphire Quality Systems to Senior Manager of Lake Forest Quality, which had
“fewer job duties” and therefore constituted a demotion. Id. ¶¶ 120–122.
The False Claims Act provides a cause of action to any employee who is
“discharged, demoted, suspended, threatened harassed, or [otherwise] discriminated
against . . . because of lawful acts” undertaken “in furtherance of” a qui tam action.
31 U.S.C. § 3730(h)(1). To prevail on a retaliation claim, relators must show that “(a)
the plaintiff’s actions were taken in furtherance of a False Claims Act enforcement
action and were therefore protected by the statute; (b) his employer had knowledge
that he was engaged in this protected conduct; and (c) his discharge was motivated,
at least in part, by the protected conduct.” United States ex rel. Ziebell v. Fox Valley
Workforce Dev. Bd. Inc., 806 F.3d 946, 953 (7th Cir. 2015) (citing Fanslow v. Chi. Mfg.
Ctr., Inc., 384 F.3d 469, 479 (7th Cir. 2004)).
21
As the Seventh Circuit explained in Fanslow, “there is an objective component
to the test for a [retaliation] claim under § 3730(h)(1), as well as a subjective one.”
384 F.3d at 479–80. Thus, “it’s not enough for [a relator] to think she’s enforcing the
False Claims Act; a reasonable employee in the same position must be able to think
the same thing.” Ziebell, 806 F.3d at 953. To make this determination, the Seventh
Circuit has held that the relevant protected activity inquiry is whether: “(1) the
employee in good faith believes, and (2) a reasonable employee in the same or similar
circumstances might believe, that the employer is committing fraud against the
government.” Fanslow, 384 F.3d at 480 (quoting Moore v. Cal. Inst. Of Tech. Jet
Propulsion Lab., 275 F.3d 838, 845 (9th Cir. 2002)).
Relator’s AC does not satisfy this inquiry. To be sure, the AC is filled with
allegations of Sapphire set quality control issues, as well as allegations that Relator
consistently reported such issues in keeping with his quality assurance role. See, e.g.,
[35] ¶¶ 83–87. But, as discussed above, Relator does not allege any fraudulent claims
activity. Complaints about regulatory violations do not, by themselves, constitute
FCA protected activity. Ziebell, 806 F.3d at 953 (finding, on summary judgment, that
a retaliation claim was “woefully lacking in factual support” because “the record [did
not] show any fraudulent-claims activity; at most it show[ed] regulatory
noncompliance.”) A reasonable employee in the same or similar circumstances as
Relator might very well believe that the Sapphire sets had significant quality control
problems, and that Defendants violated FDA regulations by attempting to cover them
up. But, even accepting all of Relator’s allegations as true, this Court cannot find
22
that a reasonable employee might believe quality control problems or silent recalls
constitute fraudulent claim activity—particularly when Relator fails to allege he
made any complaints relating to government claims or payment. See Fanslow, 384
F.3d at 483 (finding that the protected conduct element of an employee’s FCA
retaliation claim needed further development because the district court should have
considered “which of [defendant’s] claims for federal funds Fanslow thought were
fraudulent or false”) (emphasis added).
Because Relator has not established that he engaged in protected activity
under the FCA, this Court dismisses Count II of Relator’s AC. [35].
2.
Relator’s Illinois Whistleblower Act Claim
Based upon a theory similar to the FCA retaliation claim above, Relator
alleges that Defendants retaliated against Relator in violation of the IWA.
Specifically, Relator argues that he refused to: (1) prepare documentation that
allowed defective microbore sets to be returned to Q Core or destroyed; and (2) sign
forms documenting the release of “ship hold” products that he reasonably believed to
be an “illegal silent recall.” Id. ¶¶ 126–27.
To state a claim under the IWA, Relator must establish that he refused to
participate in an activity that would result in a violation of a state or federal law,
rule, or regulation, and that his employer retaliated against him because of that
refusal. 740 Ill. Comp. Stat. 174/20; Corah v. Bruss Company, 77 N.E.3d 1038, 1043
(Ill. App. Ct. 2017). Illinois courts have held that “the language of section 20 is
unambiguous and that a ‘plaintiff must actually refuse to participate’ in an activity
23
that would violate a law or regulation.” Id. (quoting Lucas v. Cty. of Cook, 987 N.E.2d
56, 65 (Ill. App. Ct. 2013)).
Relator has not alleged that he refused to participate in such an activity. As
Relator asserts, FDA regulations do require companies to promptly inform the public
of any recalls of defective medical devices, as well as report to the FDA any decision
to recall their products for safety reasons, or instances in which defective medical
devices have caused or contributed to death or serious injury.
[35] ¶ 41. But,
Relator’s IWA claim does not rely upon Defendants’ decision to refrain from informing
the public or reporting their recall to the FDA; in fact, he does not allege that he
played, or even had the authority to play, any role in Defendants’ FDA reporting
decisions. See, e.g., id. ¶¶ 66−76. Instead, his claim rests upon his alleged refusal to
prepare documentation to allow microbore sets to be returned or destroyed in the first
place, as well as his alleged refusal to sign forms documenting the release of “ship
hold” products. [35] ¶¶ 71, 126–27. In short, Relator does not point to anything
unlawful about the paperwork he refused to prepare or sign, as opposed to
Defendants’ subsequent decision not to report the products’ return and/or release. Id.
¶ 74.
Relator relies upon Young v. Alden Gardens of Waterford, LLC, 30 N.E.3d 631
(Ill. App. Ct. 2015), citing it for the principle that plaintiffs can establish an IWA
claim by pleading that they: (1) refused to falsify records; and (2) were retaliated
against for doing so.
[48] at 15−16.
But in Young, the plaintiff nurse filed a
whistleblower claim against the defendant employer, a long-term care facility,
24
alleging that it terminated her employment after she refused to falsify residents’
medication administration records at her superior’s request. 30 N.E.3d at 637. The
Young court held that these allegations sufficiently stated the plaintiff engaged in
protected activity. Id. at 644−45. Here, in contrast, Relator does not allege that any
supervisor asked him to falsify any record or form. Absent an allegation that Relator
was responsible for publicly reporting or otherwise preparing documents to announce
a public recall, that Defendants unlawfully told him not to do so, and Relator refused,
this Court cannot find that he refused to engage in unlawful activity for purposes of
his IWA claim. See Corah, 77 N.E.3d at 1043 (“[P]laintiff must actually refuse to
participate in an activity that would violate a law or regulation”) (internal quotations
omitted). Thus, this Court dismisses Count IV of Relator’s AC. [35].
IV.
Conclusion
For the reasons explained above, this Court grants Defendants’ motion to
dismiss [41] and dismisses Relator’s AC [35]. At the July 17, 2018 hearing, Relator
declined an offer under this Court's standing orders to file a second amended
complaint addressing the issues raised in the motion to dismiss [41]. This Court also
denied Defendants' request to stay discovery generally, and instead only deferred the
taking of formal depositions pending resolution of the motion to dismiss. [47]. While
this motion remained under advisement, Relator did not request leave to amend his
complaint, seek to compel written discovery from Defendants, or otherwise request
the ability to take any depositions. Accordingly, if Relator intends to file any further
amendments to his complaint, consistent with this order and Relator's Rule 11
25
obligations, then he must do so within 14 days of this order. In light of the prior
opportunities to amend and/or conduct discovery, and Relator's good-faith obligation
to conduct a pre-filing investigation of this matter, any failure to replead within 14
days of this order will result in conversion of the dismissal of Relator's Amended
Complaint to a dismissal with prejudice.
Dated: March 14, 2019
Entered:
____________________________________
John Robert Blakey
United States District Judge
26
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?