Opinion ID: 201790
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Grand Jury Investigation and Indictment

Text: 2 We set forth the facts in the light most flattering to the government's theory of the case, consistent with record support. United States v. Sebaggala, 256 F.3d 59, 62 (1st Cir.2001). From about 1997 to 2000, Richardson was employed as a Regional Account Manager for TAP Pharmaceuticals Inc. (TAP), which manufactures, among other drugs, Lupron, a prescription drug used in the treatment of prostate cancer. Richardson was responsible for maintaining relationships with institutional and managed care customers, including, in 1997, the Lahey Clinic in Burlington, Massachusetts. 3 In 1999-2000, the government convened a grand jury to investigate allegations that, in violation of federal statutes, TAP and some of its employees had provided things of value, including educational grants and free items, (1) as an inducement to certain customers to purchase and prescribe TAP products and/or (2) as a hidden discount to those customers, which allowed TAP to pay reduced rebates to state Medicaid programs based on an artificially inflated invoice or contract price. See 42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7b(b) (prohibiting the offering or paying of and the solicitation or receipt of remuneration in cash or in kind in exchange for making certain referrals or for engaging in certain transactions for which payment may be made in whole or in part under a Federal health care program); id. § 1396r-8(c)(1)(A), (C) (providing for payment of rebates by drug manufacturers to state Medicaid programs based on difference between average manufacturer price and the lowest price available from the manufacturer during the rebate period). 4 Richardson testified before the grand jury pursuant to an order of immunity on October 31, 2000 and December 19, 2000. In response to questioning about her discussions with Lahey Clinic representatives and TAP employees in 1997 regarding renewal of Lahey's contract with TAP for the clinic's Lupron purchases, Richardson denied that she had ever offered or discussed offering things of value to Lahey Clinic, in her words, as a way of reducing [Lupron's] price outside of a contract form. 5 On June 25, 2002, Richardson was indicted on one count of making false statements before a grand jury, 18 U.S.C. § 1623 (Count One), 1 and one count of obstruction of justice, id. § 1503 (Count Two), 2 based on her grand jury testimony of December 19, 2000. On October 31, 2002, the grand jury returned a superseding indictment amending Count One, re-alleging Count Two, and adding one count each of perjury and obstruction of justice (Counts Three and Four) based on a statement Richardson had made in a sworn declaration submitted to the court on September 24, 2002 in opposition to the government's motion to disqualify her defense counsel. 6 As amended, Count One alleged that, contrary to nineteen statements she made before the grand jury during her December 19, 2000 grand jury testimony, Richardson had 7 discussed with, offered[,] and provided to Lahey Clinic things of value outside the written contract as a way of making Lupron cheaper, . . . to help make up the difference between the price of Lupron and the price of Zoladex, [a competing drug], [and] as an inducement to the Lahey Clinic and some of its employees to . . . renew[] the contract with TAP and. . . to purchase Lupron for patients being treated in the Clinic's facilities; 8 and that Richardson had discussed those arrangements with other[] employees at TAP. 3 Count One further alleged that such things of value includ[ed] golf outings, research support, educational grants, free or nominally priced goods, and other items.