United States Ex Rel. Duxbury v. Ortho Biotech Products, L.P.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that, in a scheme alleging kickbacks to health care providers, allegations of “the dates and amounts of the false claims filed by these providers with the Medicare program” met the standard imposed by Rule 9(b)
• refusing to consider allegations in a later-filed Information because the relator \had his opportunity to [include those allegations] when he filed [his] Original Complaint\
• rejecting a restrictive interpretation of the original source exception that \did not have textual support\ and would have discouraged \productive private enforcement suits\
• finding a complaint sufficient where the relator had “identified, as to each of the eight medical providers (the who), the illegal kickbacks (the what), the rough time periods and locations (the where and when), and the filing of the false claims themselves”
• reversing a district court order that utilized a stringent Rule 9(b
• false claims submitted by eight health care providers in the state of Washington supported an inference of nationwide claims

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).