Oppenheimer v. Stillwell

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that “defendants [which] knowingly, submitted claims for payment of-non-covered; services provided in connection with investigational devices that were not reasonable and necessary” violate the FCA
• finding that third party physicians names were immaterial to the case and thus could be redacted or sealed
• holding the United States sufficiently met the pleading requirements for fraud under Rule 9(b)
• denying a motion to dismiss where the complaint identified specific hospitals and specific fraudulent claims
• identifying the forms on which the compliance certifications were made, where the forms required certification, and the false statements of certification
• “Rule 9(b) does not impose a ‘one size fits all’ list of facts that must be included in every FCA complaint”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).