Opinion ID: 4508603
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Earlier Qui Tam Action Against PharMerica

Text: In late 2002, William St. John LaCorte, M.D., filed a qui tam action under the FCA against PharMerica and its parent company in federal district court in Louisiana. Compl. at 1, United States ex rel. LaCorte v. AmerisourceBergen Corp., No. 023168 (E.D. La. Oct. 18, 2002), 2002 WL 32943919 (hereinafter Amerisource). A doctor who treated patients in hospitals and nursing homes in and around New Orleans, LaCorte alleged that PharMerica entered into contracts with pharmaceutical - 13 - manufacturers under which PharMerica received financial inducements in the form of discounts, remuneration, rebates, or kickbacks in exchange for using its Select Formulary6 to boost the market share of the manufacturers' drugs by substituting them for the drugs prescribed by patients' physicians. LaCorte's FCA claims were premised on violations of multiple state and federal statutes, including the AKS. Like Banigan and Templin, LaCorte alleged that participants in Medicaid programs must certify compliance with the requirements of state and federal law for the services they provide when they seek reimbursement for those services. LaCorte alleged that PharMerica violated the AKS by accepting illegal remuneration and kickbacks and then caused hospitals and nursing homes where it operated to submit false claims for reimbursement by concealing its noncompliance with the AKS and other state and federal laws. The Amerisource complaint provides a non-exhaustive list of PharMerica's preferred drugs, including Remeron.7 Remeron SolTab is identified as a preferred drug in a copy of PharMerica's Select Formulary from 2003, which is attached as an exhibit to both the first and second amended complaints. LaCorte alleged 6 The Select Formulary is PharMerica's list of preferred drugs. 7 The parties to this appeal use Remeron and Remeron Tablet interchangeably. - 14 - that PharMerica caused physicians' prescriptions to be changed to Select Formulary drugs by either making the change without a physician's knowledge or consent or by obtaining the physician's consent by providing the physician with information that misrepresented the preferred drug's safety, effectiveness, and cost savings. The case ultimately settled and was dismissed by stipulation of the parties in 2008.