811 F.3d 636
4th Cir.2016Background
- Relators May and Radcliffe appeal district court dismissal of their FCA qui tam action.
- Dispute centers on whether the pre-2010 public disclosure bar divested subject-matter jurisdiction.
- Relators allege Purdue Pharma fraud related to OxyContin and MS Contin 1996–2005 timeframe.
- Relators’ knowledge is imputed to counsel who worked on Radcliffe’s prior suit.
- District court concluded Relators’ claims were derived from Radcliffe’s suit and dismissed; later clarified on remand.
- Fourth Circuit ultimately affirms district court, holding public disclosure bar divested jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does pre-2010 public disclosure bar divest jurisdiction? | Relators: not independently derived from public disclosures. | Purdue: disclosures trigger bar; purely parasitic. | Yes; bar divests jurisdiction. |
| Are Relators' allegations actually derived from public disclosures via counsel? | Relators learned facts through attorney’s work on Radcliffe’s suit. | Bar applies when allegations derive from public disclosures, even through counsel. | Yes; derived from prior public disclosures. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States ex rel. Siller v. Becton Dickinson & Co., 21 F.3d 1339 (4th Cir. 1994) (actually derived test governs public disclosure bar)
- Doe v. John Doe Corp., 960 F.2d 318 (2d Cir. 1992) (public disclosures can divest jurisdiction; relator was attorney in related proceeding)
- United States ex rel. Ondis v. City of Woonsocket, 587 F.3d 49 (1st Cir. 2009) (public disclosure bar divisonal treatment among circuits)
- United States ex rel. Wilson v. Graham Cty. Soil & Water Conservation Dist., 777 F.3d 691 (4th Cir. 2015) (public disclosure bar purpose to deter parasitic suits)
- United States ex rel. May v. Purdue Pharma L.P., 737 F.3d 908 (4th Cir. 2013) (prior release not binding on non-signatories; sets stage for public disclosure analysis)