US Ex Rel. Bennett v. Medtronic, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• “The decision on medical necessity is made by individual physicians exercising independent professional judgment based on the knowledge of their particular patients.”
• “Medicare reimbursement[ ] for off-label uses of medical devices [is] not' addressed within the Medicare Act itself’
• “The cases recognize that off-label use of a drug or medical device is distinct from a medically unnecessary use of that drug or device.” (citations omitted)
• “Importantly, there is no allegation that Medtronic concealed or misstated the limits of the FDA’s approval on the use of [the medical device].”
• “The relators have not identified any Medtronic employees who engaged in off-label promotion nor specific physician's or hospitals who received the promotions. They have not alleged the ‘who’ or ‘where’ of the alleged fraud.”
• without identifying any “sales representative or employee who encouraged hospitals or physicians to “upcode” or any hospital or physician who did “upcode,” plaintiff failed to allege the “who, what, when, where, and how of the alleged fraud”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).