Opinion ID: 873494
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Bennett Complaint

Text: On October 16, 2008, Elaine Bennett filed a qui tam action against BSC in the United States District Court for the own.' Rost, 507 F.3d at 727 n.4 (quoting Rockwell Int'l Corp. v. United States, 549 U.S. 457, 463 n.2 (2007)). 4 BSC acquired Guidant in 2006. For simplicity, we refer to Guidant and BSC as BSC throughout this opinion. -4- District of Maryland.5 In that action, Bennett, a former employee of BSC, claimed that between 2003 and early October 2008, BSC engaged in an unlawful kickback scheme within its Cardiac Rhythm Management (CRM) division to induce physicians and hospitals to use BSC's pacemakers, internal cardiac defibrillators, and cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), thereby increasing the company's market share of these devices. BSC has allegedly offered various types of renumeration to hospitals and physicians in exchange for their use of BSC's devices in violation of the Anti-Kickback Statute, 42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7b, and has caused physicians who received kickbacks to make false claims for reimbursement under Medicare in violation of the FCA. BSC furthers its alleged kickback scheme in a number of ways: first, by provid[ing] doctors and hospitals with kickbacks in the form of follow-up medical services in exchange for the providers' use of BSC's cardiac rhythm devices; second, by induc[ing] doctors and hospitals to bill for medical services and procedures they d[id] not perform; third, by requir[ing] BSC sales personnel to provide medical care in the absence of a licensed physician or staff member; fourth, by improperly conduct[ing] Medicare billing for physicians and hospitals through non-licensed, non-medical staff; fifth, by provid[ing] monetary 5 Donald Boone, a Virginia resident and Guidant employee from 1986 to 1996, joined the Bennett Complaint as a relator. -5- 'grants' to foundations set up by physicians and physician groups in return for favored status by such physicians, and; sixth, by sponsor[ing] dinner meetings for implanting physicians to invite potential 'referring physicians' to, in order for the implanting physician to increase the number of patients he receives for implants from those referring physicians. In most instances, the benefitting implanting physician also receives an 'honorarium' for speaking about his or her expertise at the program. BSC provides physicians access to an internet-based monitoring system called The Latitude Patient Management System (Latitude), which allows patients to receive post-implant care from their residences without having to meet with a physician inperson. Latitude transmits information obtained from the implanted device through the internet to the physician's office. The physician can then use the information to determine whether the device is working properly, and whether any adjustments are necessary. Part of BSC's representatives' follow-up care for a patient's device includes office visits, phone checks, and driving to rural areas to conduct follow-up site visits. Because phone checks cost less than office visits, BSC representatives often conduct more phone consultations so that physicians can increase their billing to Medicare. BSC representatives advise physicians' offices on how to bill Medicare for the maximum reimbursement for Latitude services. -6- In addition, BSC organizes networking events where surgeons can meet physicians who might provide referrals. The host surgeon is allegedly paid as if the event were a speaking engagement when in fact it is simply a marketing ploy to increase the surgeon's and BSC's business. BSC incentivizes the use of [its] devices by planning and funding dinner programs held by implanting physicians. BSC identifies implanting physicians and organizes and pays for lavish dinner programs so that the physician in question can network with potential referring physicians. In many instances, BSC improperly pays the benefitting physician 'honoraria' for 'speaking' at these dinner programs. On September 28, 2011, the United States declined to intervene in Bennett's case. One month later, the government and Bennett agreed to voluntarily dismiss the matter. The district court dismissed the case and the seal was lifted.6 6 Before Bennett filed her October 16, 2008 complaint, she filed a complaint (under her previous name, Elaine George) against BSC in November 2006. United States ex rel. Bennett v. Bos. Scientific Corp., No. 07-2467, 2011 WL 1231577, at  (S.D. Tex. Mar. 31, 2011). The complaint, originally filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, was transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas in July 2007. On July 10, 2009, Bennett filed an amended complaint (the George Complaint). The George Complaint alleged inter alia that BSC and Guidant violated the FCA through an off-label marketing campaign and the use of illegal kickbacks that caused physicians to perform an increased number of inpatient surgical ablation procedures when less invasive and less expensive procedures could have been performed. The George Complaint was dismissed without prejudice for failure to satisfy Rule 9(b). Id. -7-