Search Site
Menu
False Claims Act Suit Against Genentech Halted

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently halted a False Claims Act lawsuit filed against Genentech Inc. In the suit, the plaintiff claimed the company defrauded Medicare by hiding some side effects of its cancer drug Avastin. The court stated the whistleblower did not show that a failure to report the safety information related to the drug was relevant to government medication reimbursement.

Before filing the qui tam claim, Gerasimos Petratos, who served as global head of healthcare data analytics for the company, had allegedly recommended using a different database that he believed would better outline the side effects associated with the drug. While there were Genentech employees who agreed with the recommendation, the company ultimately declined to follow it, believing the risk to the business was too great.

Petratos raised his concerns with the heads of product development and regulatory affairs, but those executives also did not follow his recommendations. He claims he then received a “scathing email” from his supervisor. He filed his first complaint in June 2011, claiming that Genentech based its regulatory submissions on databases that did not provide adequate information on the risks of Avastin and routinely left out electronic medical records that would have provided more complete information about the drug’s safety.

Decision by the Third Circuit

Judge Thomas Hardiman of the Third Circuit stated in his opinion that Petratos did not prove the materiality element needed for a False Claims Act case to proceed. There was a lack of proof that the company tended to influence or had the ability to influence the receipt or payment of money. The judge also wrote that there were no allegations showing the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services would not have eventually reimbursed the claims had the deficiencies been resolved.

To learn more about the process of filing a False Claims Act lawsuit, consult a knowledgeable Dallas attorney at Whistleblower Law for Managers today

Honors
Our Office
  • Dallas Office
    4514 Cole Ave
    #600
    Dallas, Texas 75205
    Phone: 214-306-8045
    Fax: 469-729-9926
Testimonials
  • "Steve Kardell was terrific in representing me in some very adversarial discussions with Citigroup and also later represented me in my testimony before the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission."  -Richard Bowen, Citigroup Whistleblower

  • "Never thought my career would end like it did after 30 years of service. I was part of the first round of the so called reduction of force. I asked myself how can I be part of this with 30 years of seniority. How did they pick these 90 plus employees? Now, the culture of this organization made you question every decision they made. It wasn’t what you knew it’s was a culture of who you know. Nonetheless, I did not accept their severance package. I immediately starting looking for an attorney who would take on my case. After the initial call to Steve I had hope again. He was open and honest about everything and reassured me he would do his best for me, and he did. I had an awesome outcome. Thanks Steve you’re the best."  -S.S.

  • "Reaching out to Steve Kardell was the best decision I made. His ability to provide immediate insight and direction was very powerful, and a huge relief during a very stressful time period. For anyone struggling with a whistleblower situation, I would highly recommend at least speaking with Steve. After a 10 minute call with him, I had a better understanding of what I was dealing with. Even better, he gave me some immediate hope. In the end Steve did a better job than I thought was possible. Steve was able to get in contact with people in my organization, that I didn’t have access to. Because of his years of experience, he already has contacts in many organizations in Dallas. The entire situation was handled peacefully. I was impressed by his ability to “keep the peace”–rather than creating a battle with the organization. The reason I didn’t reach out to a lawyer initially, was because I thought it would mean an immediate end to any hope of a positive relationship with the company. Steve was able to address my concerns, and in the end I was able to continue to work for them."  -KS

FOLLOW US
Facebook Twitter Linkedin RSS Feed JD Supra