Justia U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Townsend worked as an Arkansas pharmaceutical sales representative for Bayer, selling Mirena, a contraceptive device. Townsend visited physicians, including Dr. Shrum. Townsend learned Shrum was importing from Canada a version of Mirena that was not FDA-approved, at half the cost of the approved version. Shrum had submitted Medicaid claims at the same rate as the approved version and bragged about $50,000 in extra profit. Townsend sought guidance from his superiors. Bayer told Townsend not get involved. Townsend called the Medicaid Fraud Hotline, although he feared losing his job. Shrum was charged with Medicaid fraud. Meanwhile, Bayer changed its method of reimbursing sales expenses. Not understanding the change, Townsend’s wife spent funds intended for those expenses, causing Townsend’s account to be closed temporarily. Although Townsend's account had been reactivated, Bayer fired him, claiming his closed account prevented him doing his job. Townsend sued, citing anti-retaliation provisions of the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. 3730(h).). A jury awarded Townsend back pay, doubled to $642,746, and $568,000 in emotional distress damages. The court denied front pay and ordered Bayer to reinstate Townsend. The Eighth Circuit affirmed on all issues except the emotional distress damage award and remanded to allow Townsend the option of accepting a remittitur of $300,000, or a new trial on emotional distress damages. View "Townsend v. Bayer HealthCare Pharm. Inc." on Justia Law

Relators filed several related qui tam actions against government contractors, including Cisco, alleging that they committed fraud against the government by means of a kickback and defective pricing schemes in violation of the False Claims Act (FCA), 31 U.S.C. 3729-3733, the Anti-Kickback Act, 41 U.S.C. 51-52, and other federal statutes. The government intervened in the action against Cisco, adopted the relators' complaint, and settled the action. Relators' action was dismissed with prejudice as part of the settlement and the district court awarded relators over eight million dollars. The government appealed. Based on the court's decision in Roberts v. Accenture, LLP, the court concluded that the district court did not err by refusing to apply Rule 9(b) pleading standards when determining whether relators were entitled to a statutory share of the government's recovery under section 3730(d)(1). The court also concluded that the district court correctly awarded relators a share of the government's recovery. Finally, the district court correctly awarded relators a share of the settlement funds the government received from both Cisco and its distributor. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Rille, et al. v. United States" on Justia Law

Plaintiff alleged that Bayer defrauded the United States government through its marketing and sale of the cholesterol-lowering drug Baycol. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the dismissal of the qui tam action she brought against Bayer Healthcare under the False Claims Act (FCA), 31 U.S.C. 3729-3733. Based upon the court's review of plaintiff's allegations regarding the Department of Defense (DoD) contracts, the court concluded that her complaint satisfied Rule 9(b)'s requirements and survived a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's judgment with regard to her allegations regarding the DoD contracts and remanded for further proceedings. However, the court affirmed the district court's judgment with respect to the allegations involving federal health insurance reimbursement claims under United States v. ex rel. Roop v. Hypoguard USA, Inc. View "Simpson v. Bayer Healthcare, et al." on Justia Law

In 2005, Curtis McGhee and another individual brought claims against the City alleging violations of civil rights sounding in malicious prosecution. The City sought coverage under insurance policies issued by CIC and Columbia. On appeal, the City and McGhee challenged the district court's order granting summary judgment to CIC and Columbia, on CIC's and Columbia's declaratory judgment claims concerning coverage under the various insurance policies. The court concluded that the district court correctly refused to consider and correctly denied additional discovery of extrinsic evidence. The court also concluded that the alleged malicious prosecution and resulting personal injuries occurred when the underlying charges were filed against McGhee in 1977. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's judgment that the following policies did not afford coverage to the City for the malicious prosecution claims: the two excess liability policies issued by CIC; four of the special excess liability policies issued by Columbia; and the commercial umbrella liability policy issued by Columbia. As to the 1977-78 special excess liability policy issued by Columbia, the court reversed the district court's judgment regarding the applicability of the reasonable expectations doctrine. The court remanded for further proceedings. View "Chicago Ins. Co., et al v. City of Council Bluffs, et al" on Justia Law

Relators brought a qui tam action against HP alleging that HP engaged in unlawful kickback and defective pricing schemes in its sale of computer equipment to the federal government. The United States intervened and reached a settlement with HP and the district court awarded relators a share of the kickback settlement and a share of the defective pricing settlement pursuant to the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. 3730(d)(1). The court concluded that the case turned on fact findings the district court made regarding the relationship between relators' action and HP's subsequent disclosure of defective pricing in Contract 35F. The government failed to reveal any clear error in the district court's factual findings regarding that relationship. Moreover, at least with respect to those qui tam actions in which the government elected to intervene, a relator's initial allegations need not satisfy Rule 9(b)'s heightened pleading requirements in order to accomplish the purpose they were meant to serve. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Roberts, et al v. United States" on Justia Law

After the National Indian Gaming Commission decided that a 1994 consent decree involving the City of Duluth and the Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa was incompatible with federal law, the Band moved for dissolution of the consent decree. The City opposed the motion and the district court granted it in part and denied it in part. Both parties appealed. The Commission's change in the law governing Indian gaming made illegal what the earlier consent decree was designed to enforce. The 2011 decision by the Commission, the agency authorized by Congress to interpret and enforce the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, 25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq., ruled that the 1994 arrangement between the City and the Band violated the Act. That determination provided ample support for the district court's decision to grant prospective relief from continued enforcement of the 1994 consent decree into the 2011 to 2036 period since continued execution of the agreement would be "no longer equitable." It was unclear what conclusion the district court would have reached without its mistaken belief that Rule 60(b)(6) was not available for consideration of potential retrospective relief. The district court abused its discretion by not examining all the relevant factors and therefore the court reversed the district court's decision denying retrospective relief to the Band for its obligations to pay rent withheld from 2009 to 2011 and remanded that question for further consideration. View "City of Duluth v. Fond Du Lac Band of Chippewa" on Justia Law

Landlords Moving brought civil rights claims under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 1985 against defendants. Landlords Moving alleged that deputy sheriffs executed an illegal kickback scheme in which they funneled eviction business to private moving companies in exchange for cash payments. The district court dismissed the amended complaint for failure to state a claim against all three defendants and entered a final judgment under Rule 54(b). Landlords Moving appealed. The court reversed the dismissal of Landlords Moving's claim against defendant Laurie Main for alleged violations of Landlords Moving's rights under the First Amendment; reversed the dismissal of Landlords Moving's claims for declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to that claim; and affirmed the dismissal of all other claims and remanded for further proceedings.