By Sara Cracau, J.D.
A district court denied a motion to dismiss of a group of pharmacies and their owner in false claims action alleging fraudulent billing practices.
A district court in Virginia has denied the motion to dismiss a false claims action against a group of pharmacies and their owner in a false claims action finding that the Relator alleged sufficient facts to support an inference that the pharmacies engaged in beneficiary inducements and that they submitted to claims to the government. In addition, it found that the Relator alleged those facts with the particularity that was required under Rule 9(b). The court found that, because the FCA claim survived, so did the VFATA claim, noting that the VFATA is “practically identical” to the FCA. The court denied the pharmacies’ motion to dismiss the action based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court rejected the pharmacies’ contention that qui tam actions violate the appointments clause under Article III of the U.S. Constitution (U.S. ex rel. Breslow v. JP Pharma, LLC, No. 7:19-cv-839 (W.D. Va. Dec. 16, 2025)).
A Relator, a pharmacist who previously worked for the group of pharmacies against whom this action was initiated a qui tam action against his former employer alleging that these entities engaged in a multi-layered billing scheme designed to defraud government payors. He alleged that the pharmacies falsified prescriptions, misled treating physicians, modified or substituted ingredients in...
By Sara Cracau, J.D. A district court denied a motion to dismiss of a group of pharmacies and their owner in false claims action alleging fraudulent billing practices. A district court in Virginia...