Jones Ex Rel. United States v. Massachusetts General Hospital
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 4128
1st Cir.2015Background
- In 2001 MGH and Brigham & Women's (through PI Marilyn Albert) submitted an NIA grant application reporting that entorhinal cortex (EC) volume predicted conversion to Alzheimer’s with 93% accuracy; the application also stated operators were blinded and reported a 0.96 inter-rater reliability.
- Dr. Ronald Killiany traced EC volumes for study subjects; after an initial 25-rater reliability study he remeasured many scans, producing a second set of values. Some remeasurements overlapped scans used in the original reliability analysis.
- Relator Kenneth Jones (leader of the statistical Core B) discovered the duplicate/revised measurements and showed that substituting Killiany’s original measurements reduced predictive significance and dropped the inter-rater Pearson coefficient to 0.54.
- Jones sued under the False Claims Act alleging defendants knowingly submitted false data/statements to obtain NIH grant funds; this Court previously vacated summary judgment and remanded for trial (Jones I).
- At trial the jury found for defendants; Jones moved for JMOL and a new trial, arguing insufficient evidence, erroneous evidentiary rulings, and instructional/ procedural errors. The district court denied relief; the First Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence / entitlement to JMOL | Jones: undisputed evidence proves intentional falsification, unblinding, and materially false reliability statement; no reasonable jury could find otherwise. | Defendants: remeasurements reflect legitimate learning/accuracy improvements; credibility disputes for jury to resolve; evidence supports verdict. | Affirmed: Jones failed to preserve a proper Rule 50(a) motion; even if preserved, reasonable jurors could credit defense explanation. |
| New trial — weight of the evidence | Jones: verdict against clear weight; court should reweigh and find fraud. | Defendants: credibility and contested expert testimony justify verdict; district court discretion not abused. | Affirmed: no abuse of discretion in denying new trial; sufficient evidence supported verdict. |
| Evidentiary rulings (accuracy testimony, expert appendix, signature, financial interest) | Jones: defense testimony on accuracy, excluded appendix, signature admission, and questions about relator’s financial interest were erroneous/prejudicial. | Defendants: accuracy evidence relevant to falsity; appendix hearsay; signature and financial-bias evidence relevant to credibility. | Affirmed: rulings within discretion; appendix properly excluded as hearsay; signature and financial questions relevant; any error harmless. |
| Jury instructions / verdict form bifurcation | Jones: instructions misstated materiality/knowledge and bifurcated liability improperly. | Defendants: instructions adequately tracked law; court cured potential materiality wording; deliberate-blindness instruction given. | Affirmed: most challenges waived or not prejudicial; verdict answered both key questions no, making any charge/form error harmless. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States ex rel. Jones v. Brigham & Women's Hosp., 678 F.3d 72 (1st Cir. 2012) (prior appellate decision vacating summary judgment and framing falsification vs. scientific judgment issue)
- Estate of Berganzo-Colón ex rel. Berganzo v. Ambush, 704 F.3d 33 (1st Cir. 2013) (standard of review for Rule 50 denial)
- Marcano Rivera v. Turabo Med. Ctr. P'ship, 415 F.3d 162 (1st Cir. 2005) (standard for overturning jury verdicts)
- United States ex rel. Loughren v. Unum Grp., 613 F.3d 300 (1st Cir. 2010) (materiality standard under the FCA)
- Ortiz v. Jordan, 131 S. Ct. 884 (2011) (discussing preservation of summary judgment challenges post-trial and Rule 50(b) implications)