Earlier this year, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma granted Washington state’s motion to intervene to transfer venue to the Western District of Washington in James Siegel, M.D. v. Novo Nordisk, Inc. Relator Dr. Siegel originally filed suit in Oklahoma on February 2, 2015, alleging violations of the Federal False Claims Act (FCA), the Washington Medical Fraud False Claims Act, and the Oklahoma False Claims Act, among other state law infractions. On January 23, 2020, Washington intervened, adding additional claims under Washington’s Fraudulent Practices Act. Oklahoma and the federal government did not. The district court dismissed Oklahoma state law claims, and Washington subsequently moved to transfer the case, limited now to FCA and Washington claims, to the federal court in their own state. The court granted their motion.

State intervention is generally discretionary; in most schemes like the FCA, a relator can maintain the action to adjudicate the alleged fraudulent conduct even if a state declines to intervene. Still, States have several incentives to step in. When a state intervenes, States have greater control over how their law develops through the judiciary because their own attorneys assume the lead on the case. States may also desire to establish appropriate precedent independent of federal concerns. Additionally, state governments receive more of the amount recovered from the suit when they intervene because whistleblowers are...

Read Full Story: https://news.google.com/rss/articles/CBMiUmh0dHBzOi8vd3d3Lmpkc3VwcmEuY29tL2xl...