Another Court Hammers an Off-Label Use Case
Off-label use cases have certainly become the rage. Last week, the federal government’s Government Accountability Office released a report that outlined the government’s enforcement efforts in this area. The report casts doubt on FDA’s ability to monitor off-label drug promotion.
In addition, a number of individuals have filed federal False Claims Act “qui tam” lawsuits, seeking monetary rewards for lawsuits they have initiated against drug manufacturers which have allegedly engaged in unlawful off label promotional practices. However, most of these lawsuits have been rejected by federal courts.
On August 1, 2008, Magistrate Judge Thomas G. Wilson of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida (Tampa Division) joined the list of federal judges who have rejected off-label use qui tam cases. In United States ex rel Hopper and Hutto v. Solvay Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Magistrate Judge Wilson issued a 27-page Report and Recommendation in which he recommended that the District Court dismiss this action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Magistrate Judge Wilson found that although the qui tam relators’ amended complaint had gone into detail about allegations of a purported fraudulent scheme involving off label sales, the relators had utterly failed to comply with the requirements set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P (9)(b) to include specific allegations of actual false claims that were submitted to the government. The relators acknowledged that they had no evidence of any false claims being submitted. The Magistrate Judge rejected the argument that the court could infer that false claims were submitted because of the purported off label marketing scheme that was identified in the amended complaint.
The court’s ruling relied on three published decisions from the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, which had collectively rejected qui tam cases where the relators had not submitted evidence that false claims had actually been submitted to the government. However, the court did not need to rely on any of the four other court ruling which have dismissed off label use qui tam actions. See e.g., United States ex rel. Rost v. Pfizer, Inc., 446 F.Supp. 6 (D. Mass 2006), a ruling later affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. (Additional information on this case is available from Pharmalot.)
These qui tam off-label use cases, culminating in Hopper and Hutto establish a very demanding threshold for qui tam relators to meet in order to move forward with this type of case. For instance, it seems very unlikely that current or former sales people can meet the 9(b) requirements even if, as in Hopper and Hutto, the sales people were allegedly involving in the off-label marketing practices of a company.
UPDATE:
- On September 8, 2008, Judge Merryday issued an order adopting the Magistrate's report and recommendation, and dismissing the case.
Comments