UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, and the State of North Carolina, California and Illinois, ex rel., SCARLETT LUTZ, Relator; CHRIS REIDEL; KAYLA WEBSTER, Relator; DR. MICHAEL MAYES, Relator, Plaintiffs - Appellees, v. LATONYA MALLORY, Defendant - Appellant, and HEALTH DIAGNOSTIC LABORATORY INC.; SINGULEX INC.; LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA HOLDINGS; BLUEWAVE HEALTHCARE CONSULTANTS, INC.; PHILIPPE J. GOIX, PhD; FLOYD CALHOUN DENT, III; ROBERT BRADFORD JOHNSON; BERKELEY HEARTLAB, INC.; QUEST DIAGNOSTICS, INCORPORATED, Defendants.UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, and the States of North Carolina, California and Illinois, ex rel., SCARLETT LUTZ, Relator; DR. MICHAEL MAYES, Relator; CHRIS RIEDEL; KAYLA WEBSTER, Relator, Plaintiffs - Appellees, v. CHRISTINA M. DENT; LAKELIN PINES, LLC; TRINI "D" ISLAND, LLC, Parties-in-Interest - Defendants, and LATONYA MALLORY; HEALTH DIAGNOSTIC LABORATORY INC.; LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA HOLDINGS; PHILIPPE J. GOIX, PhD; BERKELEY HEARTLAB, INC.; QUEST DIAGNOSTICS, INCORPORATED; SINGULEX INC.; BLUEWAVE HEALTHCARE CONSULTANTS, INC.; FLOYD CALHOUN DENT, III; ROBERT BRADFORD JOHNSON, Defendants.UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, and the State of North Carolina, California and Illinois, ex rel., SCARLETT LUTZ; KAYLA WEBSTER; CHRIS RIEDEL; DR. MICHAEL MAYES, Plaintiffs - Appellees, v. ROBERT BRADFORD JOHNSON; FLOYD CALHOUN DENT, III; BLUEWAVE HEALTHCARE CONSULTANTS, INC., Defendants - Appellants, AROC ENTERPRISES, LLC; BLUE EAGLE FARMING, LLC; CAE PROPERTIES, LLC; WAR-HORSE PROPERTIES, LLLP; EAGLE RAY INVESTMENTS, LLC; FORSE INVESTMENTS, LLC; ROYAL BLUE MEDICAL INCORPORATED; COBALT HEALTHCARE CONSULTANTS, INC., Parties-in-Interest - Appellants, and BERKELEY HEARTLAB, INC.; LATONYA MALLORY, Defendants., 988 F.3d 730
Summary
HOLDINGS: [1]-A reasonable jury could conclude that defendants willfully paid commissions to independent contractors and, accordingly, that they violated the Anti-Kickback Statute, 42 U.S.C.S. § 1320a-7b; [2]-The statute prohibited individuals from receiving remuneration in exchange for arranging or recommending purchasing healthcare services, including sales representatives who were compensated for recommending a healthcare service to physicians; [3]-The jury charge captured the essence of defendants' proposed instruction, that if they had a good-faith belief that their conduct was legal, then they did not violate the Anti-Kickback Statute; [4]-A violation of the Anti-Kickback Statute automatically constituted a false claim under the False Claims Act; [5]-The district court properly excluded defendants' experts' testimony because their opinions did not rest on sufficient facts or data.