Articles Tagged with California False Claims Act lawyer

andres-de-armas-103880-copy-300x200On July 24, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Central District of California announced that Celgene Corp., a pharmaceutical manufacturer headquartered in New Jersey, will pay $280 million to numerous states and the federal government to settle claims that it submitted false claims to the federal government and state health programs. From the settlement, $259.3 million will go to the federal government, $20.7 million will be divided among 28 states and the District of Columbia. California is set to receive more than any other state at $4.7 million.

U.S. ex rel. Brown v. Celgene Corp.

The settlement is the result of a whistleblower lawsuit filed by Beverly Brown under the qui tam provision of the False Claims Act. Brown, who was a sales manager at Celgene, brought a lawsuit on behalf of the federal and state governments. She provided evidence that Celgene promoted two cancer drugs, Thalomid and Revlimid, for uses that were not approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and therefore not covered by federal healthcare programs.

Last week, we wrote about the upcoming Supreme Court case that will decide if the implied certification theory is a valid interpretation of the Federal False Claims Act (“FCA”).  It is a decision that could substantially empower government fraud whistleblowers.  However, it is worth remembering that the federal false claims act is only relevant to cases involving alleged fraud on the federal government, including Medicare fraud.  State false claims acts, which in many cases are relatively similar to their federal counterpart, are a key tool for fighting fraud on the state government including state-level government contract fraud and Medicaid fraud (a joint state/federal program).  Our government fraud law firm supports whistleblowers nationwide, including in our home state of California.  The case law specifically supports implied certification under the California False Claims Act (“CFCA”) and we believe other states may accept the theory as well.

Courts Hold Implied Certification Theory Valid Under California False Claims Act

lawbooksIn San Francisco Unified School Dist. ex rel. Contreras v. Laidlaw Transit Inc., 182 Cal. App. 4th 438 (Cal. App. 1st Dist. 2010) and again in a 2014 decision, the Court of Appeals for the State of California considered a suit brought by a group of whistleblowers on behalf of the San Francisco Unified School District (“District”) under the CFCA.  The Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendant submitted payment claims to the District despite knowing it was in breach of assorted contract terms relating to student transportation services.  These violations allegedly rendered the Defendant’s buses unsafe and unhealthy.  The Plaintiffs also alleged that the Defendants knowingly falsified records and/or statements.