United States ex rel. Heineman-Guta v. Guidant Corp.
874 F. Supp. 2d 35
D. Mass.2012Background
- Relator filed a qui tam FCA action against Guidant Corp. and Boston Scientific Corp. (BSC) alleging kickbacks to promote cardiac rhythm management devices.
- US declined to intervene in Oct. 2011; complaint unsealed and relator filed a first amended complaint (FAC) in Jan. 2012 focusing on kickbacks.
- Relator, a Guidant/BSC account manager (2003–2007), witnessed and participated in a scheme offering trips, meals, honoraria, grants, and other benefits to referring physicians and residents.
- Allegations claim violations of the Anti-Kickback Statute and false claims/records to Medicare/Medicaid under FCA (Counts I and II).
- Defendants move to dismiss based on the first-to-file rule; Bennett and George earlier complaints are invoked as bar, with Bennett alleging a broad kickback scheme and charges in the CRM device area.
- Court concludes Bennett provides an essential-facts bar to the FAC, while George does not, and the FAC is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the FAC is precluded by the first-to-file rule. | Heineman-Guta argues Bennett bars later actions. | Defendants contend Bennett is a proper prior action that displaces the FAC. | Yes, Bennett bars the FAC. |
| Whether Bennett qualifies as a proper bar despite Rule 9(b) concerns. | Heineman-Guta contends Bennett is not jurisdictionally proper due to Rule 9(b) particularity failures. | Bennett sufficiently discloses essential facts; Rule 9(b) not required for first-to-file bar. | Bennett can preclude the FAC despite Rule 9(b) issues. |
| Whether George precludes the FAC as a bar. | George is not a kickback-scheme complaint and does not bar the FAC. | George, though related, does not disclose the kickback scheme at issue. | George does not preclude the FAC. |
| Whether the court should address alternative grounds for dismissal. | Unnecessary since Bennett provides an absolute bar. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States ex rel. Duxbury v. Ortho Biotech Prods., L.P., 579 F.3d 13 (1st Cir. 2009) (essential-facts standard for first-to-file bar)
- United States ex rel. Lujan v. Hughes Aircraft Co., 243 F.3d 1181 (9th Cir. 2001) (first-to-file bar concept and notice to government)
- United States ex rel. Walburn v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 431 F.3d 966 (6th Cir. 2005) (first-to-file bar requires pending action and prevents related actions)
- United States ex rel. Campbell v. Redding Med. Ctr., 421 F.3d 817 (9th Cir. 2005) (limits of first-to-file applicability; Rule 9(b) not necessary for preemption)
- United States ex rel. Batiste v. SLM Corp., 659 F.3d 1204 (D.C.Cir. 2011) (D.C. Circuit rejects strict Rule 9(b) barrier to first-to-file bar; government-notice focus)
- United States ex rel. Poteet v. Medtronic, Inc., 552 F.3d 503 (6th Cir. 2009) (importance of essential-facts standard for first-to-file)