United States Ex Rel. Fowler v. Caremark RX, L.L.C.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the plaintiffs failed to meet Rule 9(b)’s particularity requirement where they did “not present any evidence at an individualized transactional level”
• finding that the plaintiffs did “not present any evidence at an individualized transaction level to demonstrate” fraudulent retention of federal refunds
• noting that “‘innocent’ mistakes or negligence are not actionable” under the FCA (citations omitted)
• “Both sections [ (a)(1) and (a)(2)] require a false claim or statement and knowledge that the claim or statement is false.”
• \Relators do not present any evidence at an individualized transaction level to demonstrate\ fraudulent retention of federal refunds
• “[Relator’s position] would transform every inaccurate claim into a false claim and consequently replace the Act’s knowledge requirement with a strict liability standard.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).