Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Following a guilty plea last year by a major pharmaceutical company, Associate Attorney General Robert McCallum declared that “[t]he Department of Justice is committed to rooting out and prosecuting health care fraud. It is of paramount importance that the Department use every legal tool at its disposal to assure the health and safety of the consumers of America's health care system.” The tools — the variety of different criminal statutes and theories used to prosecute drug and device manufacturers — are so diverse as to defy easy summary. At one end are the general, long-established offenses, such as the Civil War-era statute criminalizing the submission of false claims to a department or agency of the United States, 18 U.S.C. ' 287 (the “criminal False Claims Act”) or the mail and wire fraud statutes. At the other are highly focused statutes, such as the federal health care “Antikickback Statute,” 42 U.S.C. ' 1320A-7b(b); see also 21 U.S.C. '' 331(t), 333(b) (drug importation and marketing violations), which prohibit, inter alia, “remuneration” to physicians to use drugs or devices that are reimbursable by a federal health care program. See also 68 Fed. Reg. 23,731, 23,734-38 (May 5, 2003) (identifying anti-kickback “risk areas”).
The tools have been wielded effectively. The Department of Justice (DOJ) has obtained staggering criminal, regulatory, and civil fines from pharmaceutical companies. In October 2001, for example, TAP Pharmaceuticals agreed to pay $875 million to resolve criminal charges and civil liabilities, under the Antikickback Statute and other laws, arising from the company's distribution of thousands of free samples of Lupron', a prostrate cancer treatment, to induce doctors to write prescriptions.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.
The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.
Each stage of an attorney's career offers opportunities for a curriculum that addresses both the individual's and the firm's need to drive success.
A defendant in a patent infringement suit may, during discovery and prior to a <i>Markman</i> hearing, compel the plaintiff to produce claim charts, claim constructions, and element-by-element infringement analyses.