United States Ex Rel. Franklin v. Parke-Davis, Division of Warner-Lambert Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that the relator did not allege that “Parke — Davis caused or induced a doctor and/or pharmacist to file a false or fraudulent certification regarding compliance with the anti-kickback statute”
• explaining that pleadings all occurrences of fraud in a complex fraudulent scheme would be “ungainly if not impossible” especially in cases where relator “does not reasonably have pre-discovery access to patient-specific information”
• holding defendant could be liable when the submission of false claims was foreseeable
• observing that, reading Rule 9(b) in conjunction with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), “while Relator must allege the circumstances of the fraud, he is not required to plead all of the evidence or facts supporting it” (citation omitted)
• holding defendant could be liable when the submission of false claims was foreseeable
• referring to allegations of false data, false leads from clinical trials, supporting effectiveness for off-label uses, promotional materials saying drug was effective for off-label uses

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).