Robert T. Rhoad, Partner Washington, D.C.
rrhoad@crowell.com
Phone: +1 202.624.2545
1001 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, D.C. 20004-2595

Robert "Bob" Rhoad is a partner in the Washington, D.C. office of Crowell & Moring and is active in the firm's Health Care, Government Contracts, White Collar & Regulatory Enforcement, and Antitrust groups. He serves as a member of the firm's Government Contracts Group Steering Committee, as well as a co-leader of both the firm's Government Procurement Fraud/False Claims Act and Health Care Litigation Teams. Bob is a trial lawyer with over 20 years of experience and his primary area of focus is complex litigation involving the federal False Claims Act, state false claims laws, fraud and abuse matters, and criminal and civil government enforcement actions initiated by qui tam relators (whistleblowers) and/or brought by federal and state governmental authorities. In recognition of his success, among other accolades, Bob has been listed as a Washington, D.C. "Super Lawyer" by Super Lawyers® in the Civil Litigation category and as a "Top Lawyer" by Washingtonian magazine in the Whistleblower Defense category – one of only six attorneys so designated.

In addition to representing government contractors and health care entities as defendants in national litigation, Bob has significant experience in the successful representation of health care industry clients as plaintiffs in affirmative litigation to recover damages suffered due to anticompetitive conduct, as well as the fraudulent marketing and sales of defective pharmaceuticals and medical devices by manufacturers. His recoveries for clients in such cases to date range in the hundreds of millions of dollars.

Since 2002, he has taught litigation and trial courses as an adjunct professor at The George Washington University Law School. He has also presented at numerous national conferences and has published scores of articles over the years. Bob also currently serves as the co-chair of the American Bar Association Health Law Section's Ethics and Professionalism Committee and is vice chair of its Health e-Source Editorial Board.

Prior to entering private practice in 1999, Bob served for nearly six years as an attorney/officer in Navy Judge Advocate General's (JAG) Corps in successive assignments as prosecutor, defense counsel, and civil litigation attorney. As both a prosecutor and defense counsel, Bob gained significant trial experience as lead counsel in numerous felony cases involving complex fraud issues. As a civil litigation attorney, he served as lead agency counsel for the Department of the Navy, working with U.S. Attorney Offices throughout the country in the litigation and trial of cases on behalf of the Department of the Navy. He attained the rank of lieutenant commander and received numerous awards and commendations for his service as a Navy judge advocate and with the federal government.

False Claims Act/Qui Tam Matters

  • United States ex rel. Robert R. Purcell v. MWI Corp., et al., Case No. 1:98-CV-02088 (D.D.C.). Lead Defense/Trial Counsel for Moving Water Industries, Inc. (MWI) in a FCA qui tam action alleging fraud related to submissions to the Export-Import Bank of the United States, which financed loans issued to several Nigerian states for their purchase of pumping/irrigation equipment from MWI in the early 1990s. The Government intervened and claimed trebled damages in excess of $222 million. During the month-long jury trial, the Government's common law claims were dismissed with prejudice and the trial resulted in a judgment of $0 damages on the Government's False Claims Act claims. See United States ex rel. Robert Purcell v. Moving Water Industries, Inc., et al., --- F.Supp.2d----, 2014 WL 521524 (D.D.C.) (February 10, 2014).
  • United States ex rel. Prescott Lovern v. The Prudential Insur. Co. Of America, et al., Case No. 1:12-cv-00704 (D.D.C.). Lead Defense Counsel for Zurich American Insur. Co. in connection with False Claims Act/qui tam action alleging fraud related to grant funding for a renewable energy project under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. The Government did not intervene. All claims were dismissed with prejudice. See United States ex rel. Prescott Lovern v. The Prudential Insur. Co. Of America, et al., Case No. 1:12-cv-00704 (D.D.C.) (Minute Order, January 22, 2014).
  • United States et al. ex rel Patricia Critz v. ProStrakan, Inc., Case No. 2:12-cv-02425 (W.D. Tenn.). Lead Defense Counsel for brand name pharmaceutical company, ProStrakan, Inc., in a False Claims Act/qui tam retaliation case involving allegations of off-label promotion. The Government did not intervene. Retaliation claims settled for nuisance value and case dismissed with prejudiced. See United States et al. ex rel Patricia Critz v. ProStrakan, Inc., Case No. 2:12-cv-02425 (W.D. Tenn.) (Judgment, December 20, 2013). 
  • United States ex rel _____ v. _____ (under seal) (E.D. Va.). Lead Defense Counsel for physician in False Claims Act/qui tam action involving allegation of "upcoding" and billing for services not rendered for palliative/hospice care. Allegations involving physician client resolved with no criminal or civil liability.
  • United States ex rel. Michael Lindley v. The Gallup Organization, (D.D.C.). Lead Defense Counsel for The Gallup Organization in a False Claims Act/qui tam action involving parallel criminal and civil proceedings involving allegations of violations of 18 U.S.C. § 207 (conflicts of interest), 18 U.S.C. § 287 (criminal False Claims Act), 41 U.S.C. § 423 (Procurement Integrity Act) and the civil False Claims Act. The False Claims Act claims alleged improper bid pricing in connection with nearly 30 different contracts with eight separate federal agencies. Government intervened only as to claims related to three contracts with two federal agencies. Criminal allegations resolved through non-prosecution agreement and civil False Claims Act allegations resolved just prior to filing of motions to dismiss for small fraction of alleged single damages and previously imposed suspension was lifted.
  • United States ex rel. _____ v. _____, (under seal) (C.D. Cal.). Lead Defense Counsel for national telecommunications firm in False Claims Act/qui tam action alleging retaliation related to alleged False Claims Act violations related to provision of telecommunication services to government agencies. Case successfully resolved for nuisance value through mediation.
  • United States ex rel. Ven-A-Care of the Florida Keys v. Actavis Mid Atlantic LLC, et al., Case No. 08-cv-10852 (D. Mass.). Lead Defense Counsel for Actavis Mid Atlantic LLC in False Claims Act/qui tam action alleging pharmaceutical price reporting fraud in violation of the False Claims Act in connection with In re: Pharmaceutical Industry Average Wholesale Price Litigation, MDL No. 1456, Case No. 01-CV-12257 (D. Mass.). The Government did not intervene.  Case successfully resolved through settlement following protracted litigation.
  • Commonwealth of Kentucky, ex rel. Jack Conway, Attorney General v. Alpharma USPD, Inc., et al., Case No. 04-CI-1487, Commonwealth of Kentucky, Franklin Circuit Court, Div. I. Lead Defense Counsel for Actavis Mid Atlantic LLC and its affiliated companies in case alleging violations of the Kentucky Consumer Protection Act, Medicaid Fraud Statute, False Advertising Statute, and General Recovery Statute. Case successfully resolved through settlement following summary judgment motion hearing and on eve of trial for fraction of claimed single damages.
  • United States v. John B. Torkelsen, et al., Case No.2:06-CV-05674 (E.D. Pa.). Lead Defense Counsel for individual defendants in False Claim Act case alleging fraud under the U.S. Small Business Administration's Small Business Investment Company (SBIC) Program. The False Claims Act action was brought in conjunction with separate receivorship and tort actions against these and other defendants. Following litigation, the False Claims Act claims were resolved successfully as part of a global resolution of all pending actions, including the receivership action for which judgment had previously been entered and for less than the judgment previously imposed.
  • United States ex rel. Patricia Howard v. USA Environmental, Inc., Case No. 8:06-CV-00027 (M.D. Fla.); Patricia Howard v. USA Environmental, Inc., Case No. 09-11866 (11th Cir.). Lead Defense/Appellate Counsel for USA Environmental, Inc. (USAE) in qui tam action under the False Claims Act alleging fraud by USAE in conjunction with contract with the U.S. Army to dispose of unexploded ordinance in Iraq and retaliation. The Government did not intervene. All fraud claims were dismissed with prejudice upon USAE's motion to dismiss. Amended complaint was then filed on retaliation claim and it was dismissed with prejudice upon USAE's renewed motion to dismiss. Judgment entered in favor of USAE and against the Relator on all claims alleged. Affirmed by 11th Circuit on appeal. See U.S. ex rel. Patricia Howard v. USA Environmental, Inc., 2009 WL 113444 (M.D. Fla.) (dismissing FCA fraud claims with prejudice and FCA retaliation claim without prejudice); United States ex rel. Patricia Howard v. USA Environmental, Inc., 2009 WL 652433 (M.D. Fla.) (dismissing FCA retaliation claim and entire case with prejudice); United States ex rel. Patricia Howard v. USA Environmental, Inc., No. 09-11866 (11th Cir. 2010) (Per Curiam decision affirming dismissal with prejudice) (March 5, 2010).
  • United States ex rel. DRC, Inc. et al. v. Custer Battles, LLC, et al. , Case No. 1:04-CV-00199 (E.D. Va.); U.S. ex rel. DRC, Inc. et al. v. Custer Battles, LLC, et al., Case No. 07-1220 (4th Cir.). Lead Defense/Trial/Appellate Counsel for Custer Battles Defendants (i.e., Custer Battles LLC and its affiliated companies and principles) in qui tam action under the False Claims Act alleging fraud in conjunction with two contracts Custer Battles, LLC had with the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) in Iraq to provide security support services for the Baghdad International Airport (BIAP Contract) and support services for the Iraqi Currency Exchange Program (ICE Contract). Summary judgment granted in favor of the Custer Battles Defendants on all of the False Claims Act fraud claims regarding the BIAP Contract. Judgment as a matter of law was granted in favor of Custer Battles Defendants on all of the False Claims Act fraud claims regarding the ICE Contract following a month-long trial. The Government did not intervene in the District Court proceedings, but did file a brief and present argument as amicus curiae on appeal to the 4th Circuit. On appeal, the judgment on the BIAP Contract claims was affirmed and the judgment on the ICE Contract claims was reversed and remanded for further proceedings. See U.S. ex rel. DRC, Inc., et al. v. Custer Battles, LLC, et al., 376 F.Supp.2d 617 (E.D. Va. 2005) (granting in part and denying in part summary judgment); U.S. ex rel. DRC, Inc., et al. v. Custer Battles, LLC, et al., 444 F.Supp.2d 678 (E.D. Va. 2006) (judgment as a matter of law and dismissal of ICE Contract claims); U.S. ex rel. DRC, Inc., et al. v. Custer Battles, LLC, et al., 472 F.Supp.2d 787 (E.D. Va. 2007) (summary judgment on and dismissal of BIAP Contract claims); U.S. ex rel. DRC, Inc., et al. v. Custer Battles, LLC, et al., 562 F.3d 295 (4th Cir. 2009).
  • U.S. ex rel. Rory Mayberry, et al. v. Custer Battles, LLC, et al., Case No. (E.D. Va.). Consulting Counsel for Custer Battles, LLC (and its affiliated companies and principles) in qui tam action under the False Claims Act alleging fraud and improper transfer by Custer Battles, LLC of its contracts with the Coalitional Provisional Authority (CPA) in Iraq and Iraq assets to an alleged "sham" successor entity to evade the effect of a Government suspension order. The Government did not intervene in the case. While summary judgment motions were pending, the case was dismissed and Relator Mayberry and his counsel were admonished and sanctioned for egregious discovery violations.
  • United States ex rel. Bradford Hunt, et al. v. Merck-Medco Managed Care, LLC, et al., Case No. 00-cv-737 (E.D. Pa.). Plaintiffs'/Relators' Counsel in qui tam action under the False Claims Act alleging fraud by a national pharmacy benefit management company (PBM) related to services performed for federal health plans. The Government intervened in the case, which was litigated aggressively for several years, and which was settled for approximately $185 million just prior to summary judgment/trial. It was one of the largest False Claims Act settlements at the time and was the largest civil settlement in Pennsylvania in 2006-2007. See U.S. ex rel. Hunt, et al. v. Merck- Medco Managed Care, LLC, et al. , 336 F. Supp. 2d 430 (E.D. Pa., 2004); U.S. ex rel. Hunt, et al. v. Merck- Medco Managed Care, LLC, et al., 340 F. Supp. 2d 554 (E.D. Pa. 2004); U.S. ex rel. Hunt, et al. v. Merck- Medco Managed Care, LLC, et al., 223 F.R.D. 330 (E.D. Pa. 2004).
  • U.S. ex rel. _____ v. _____, (under seal) (D. Mass.). Defense Counsel for a large, national health managed care organization in (criminal and civil) False Claims Act case involving allegations of fraud and conspiracy related to agreements with several pharmaceutical manufacturers to purportedly circumvent provisions under the Medicaid "Best Price" statute. Initially, the Government considered our client as the "hub" of the alleged conspiracy. Although several other subjects of the Government's investigation (pharmaceutical manufacturers) eventually entered criminal pleas and/or reached multi-million dollar civil settlements with the Government (involving Corporate Integrity Agreements), we successfully convinced the Government to decline further prosecution and to abandon civil enforcement against our client, relieving it of any further criminal or civil exposure and avoiding the imposition of a Corporate Integrity Agreement.
  • U.S. ex rel. _____ v. _____, (under seal) (S.D. Ohio). Lead Defense Counsel for national durable medical equipment (DME) manufacturer/supplier in qui tam action brought under the False Claims Act alleging fraud related to certifications made in conjunction with sales of medical equipment through federal programs. The Government did not intervene and the case was dismissed as a result of our effective advocacy during the investigation stage of the case.
  • U.S. ex rel. _____ v. _____, (under seal) (S.D. Ohio). Lead Defense Counsel for national manufacturer of armored vehicles/Defense contractor in qui tam action brought under the False Claims Act alleging fraud related to certifications made in conjunction with armored vehicles manufactured under contract with the Army. The Government did not intervene and the case was dismissed as a result of our effective advocacy during the investigation stage of the case.
  • U.S. v. Valenzuela Engineering, Inc., (E.D. Cal.). Defense Counsel for national engineering and construction firm in (criminal and civil) False Claims Act case alleging various acts of fraud related to contracts with the Air Force and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Our client, which was originally central to the Government's investigation, was completely vindicated and was neither indicted nor entered into a civil settlement with the Government.
  • U.S. ex rel: _____ v. _____, (under seal) (D.D.C.). Defense Counsel for large, non-profit humanitarian relief organization/NGO in qui tam action brought under the False Claims Act alleging fraud in conjunction with contracts/grants with the U.S. Agency for International Development to support various agri-business programs in eastern Europe. The Government did not intervene and the case was dismissed as a result of our effective advocacy during the investigation stage of the case.
  • U.S. v. Powell, et al., Case No. 00cr0054-02 (D.D.C.). Defense Counsel for alleged co-conspirator in criminal case involving various fraud allegations related to contracting activities in conjunction with the sale of computer equipment to the Government through contracts with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). As a result of our efforts, our client was not indicted and the Government declined to pursue criminal prosecution or civil settlement.

Health Care/Antitrust & Other Affirmative Recovery Matters

  • Health Care Services Corp, Inc., et al. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Case No. 01-2646 (MDL Docket No. 1290, Misc. No. 99-ms-276) (D.D.C.) and Health Care Services Corp, Inc., et al. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Case Nos. 08-5044, 08-5045 (D.C. Cir.), (consolidated under the MDL captioned as In re Lorazepam & Clorazepate Antitrust Litig., MDL Docket No. 1290, Misc. No. 99-ms-276) (D.D.C.)). Plaintiff's and Lead Appellate Counsel for Plaintiff-Appellee, Health Care Services Corp. and its operating divisions of Blue Cross Blue Shield of Illinois, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Texas, and Blue Cross Blue Shield of New Mexico (HCSC). The pending appeal before the D.C. Circuit involves efforts to affirm a jury verdict won on behalf of HCSC for all claims (primarily antitrust claims brought under the Illinois Antitrust Act) and damages for the recovery of overpayments due to Defendants' anticompetitive conduct in the markets for lorazepam (generic equivalent of Ativan®) and clorazepate (generic equivalent of Tranxene®). After HCSC elected to opt-out of an underlying class litigation/settlement, and after several additional years of litigation, the case was tried to verdict in a month-long jury trial. The jury returned a verdict for HCSC on all claims and for all damages alleged. It was the first and – to this day –the only indirect purchaser/third-party payor case involving the pharmaceutical industry actually tried to verdict. Following verdict, the damages award for Plaintiffs was trebled and enhanced by the Court and currently amounts to nearly $80 million (over twice the amount of the nationwide class settlement). Motions for interest and attorneys' fees and costs are pending.
  • In re: Plavix Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litigation , Case No. 1:06-cv-00202 (MHW) (S.D. Ohio) and In re: Plavix Indirect Purchaser Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:06-cv-00226 (MHW) (S.D. Ohio). Lead Counsel for Plaintiff class members Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. and Kaiser Foundation Hospitals as both direct purchasers and indirect purchasers in conjunction with complex antitrust litigation against Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., Sanofi-Aventis, Sanofi-Synthelabo, Inc., Sanofi-Aventis U.S. L.L.C., Bristol-Myers Squibb Sanofi Pharmaceutical Holding Partnership, and Apotex Corporation seeking recovery of overpayments due to Defendants' alleged anticompetitive conduct in the market for clopidogrel bisulfate tablets (including Plavix®). Dispositive motions are pending.
  • In re: Vioxx Marketing Fraud Litigation, (619-TPP) (N.J. Sup. Ct. - Atlantic County Division). Lead Plaintiff's counsel for Excellus Health Plan, Inc., Blue Cross Blue Shield of Minnesota, Blue Cross, Blue Shield of Nebraska, and Blue Cross of Idaho in, respectively, individual actions captioned as: Excellus Health Plan, Inc., et al. v. Merck, Inc., Case No. L-4354-08 (N.J. Sup. Ct. - Atlantic County Division), Blue Cross Blue Shield of Minnesota, et al. v. Merck, Inc., Case No. L-4355-08 (N.J. Sup. Ct. - Atlantic County Division), Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Nebraska, et al. v. Merck, Inc., Case No. L-4356-08 (N.J. Sup. Ct. - Atlantic County Division), and Blue Cross of Idaho Health Service, Inc. v. Merck, Inc., Case No. L-3019-09 (N.J. Sup. Ct. - Atlantic County Division). These actions sought recovery of overpayments for the prescription drug Vioxx® based on state statutory and common law claims due to alleged marketing fraud. After intensive litigation, including discovery and dispositive motions, successful settlements were achieved.
  • In re: Vioxx Products Liability Litigation, Case No. MDL 1657 (E.D. La.). Individual Plaintiffs' Counsel for group of health insurers/third party payors seeking subrogation recovery against proceeds to be paid from $4.85 billion settlement to claimants who were members of and received health benefits for the treatment of Vioxx-related conditions. After litigating on our clients' behalf, a settlement was achieved through which a lien resolution program was established to allow for the efficient and effective subrogation recovery by health insurers/third party payors through the underlying settlement.
  • In re: Oxycontin Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:04-md-01603 (SHS) (S.D.N.Y.). Lead Counsel for Plaintiff class members Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. and Kaiser Foundation Hospitals as both direct purchasers and indirect purchasers in conjunction with complex antitrust litigation against Purdue Pharma L.P seeking recovery of overpayments made by Kaiser due to alleged anticompetitive conduct in the market for OxyContin® and its generic equivalents. After extensive litigation, settlements have been reached in principle and are pending.
  • U.S. ex rel. Bradford Hunt, et al. v. Merck-Medco Managed Care, LLC, et al., Case No. 00-cv-737 (E.D. Pa.). Plaintiffs'/Relators' Counsel in qui tam action under the False Claims Act alleging fraud by a national pharmacy benefit management company (PBM) related to services performed for federal health plans. The Government intervened in the case, which was litigated aggressively for several years, and which was settled for approximately $185 million just prior to summary judgment/trial. It is one of the largest False Claims Act settlements and was the largest civil settlement in Pennsylvania in 2006-2007. See U.S. ex rel. Hunt, et al. v. Merck- Medco Managed Care, LLC, et al. , 336 F. Supp. 2d 430 (E.D. Pa., 2004); U.S. ex rel. Hunt, et al. v. Merck- Medco Managed Care, LLC, et al., 340 F. Supp. 2d 554 (E.D. Pa. 2004); U.S. ex rel. Hunt, et al. v. Merck- Medco Managed Care, LLC, et al., 223 F.R.D. 330 (E.D. Pa. 2004).
  • In re: Buspirone Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1413 (S.D.N.Y.) . Lead Counsel for Plaintiff class members Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. and Kaiser Foundation Hospitals as both direct purchasers and indirect purchasers in conjunction with complex antitrust litigation against Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS), Danbury Pharmacal, Inc., Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Watson Pharma, Inc. It was alleged that BMS unlawfully impaired the ability of generic manufacturers from entering the buspirone market to compete with its buspirone product sold under the brand name BuSpar®. The case settled following dispositive motions, with direct purchaser/payors receiving approximately $220 million and indirect purchaser/health plans and payors receiving approximately $90 million. Kaiser received millions of dollars through these settlements and its recovery, net of attorneys' fees, was in excess of 100% of its overpayments. Kaiser also received an award of attorneys' fees and costs through the direct purchaser class settlement.
  • Oncology & Radiation Associates, P.A. v. Bristol Myers Squibb Co., et al., Case No. 1:01-cv-02313 (D.D.C.). Lead Counsel for Plaintiff class members Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. and Kaiser Foundation Hospitals as both direct purchasers and indirect purchasers in conjunction with complex antitrust litigation against Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS) and American BioScience, Inc. It was alleged that BMS unlawfully monopolized the U.S. market for paclitaxel, a cancer drug discovered and developed by the United States Government, which BMS sold under the brand name Taxol®. BMS' scheme included a conspiracy with American BioScience, Inc., a generic manufacturer, to block generic competition. The case settled following dispositive motions for more than $65 million. Kaiser received millions of dollars through this settlement.
  • Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, et al. v. Aventis S.A., et al., Case No. 2:01-cv-72806 (E.D. Mich.). Plaintiffs' Counsel for Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Massachusetts, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota, and Excellus Blue Cross Blue Shield in conjunction with complex antitrust litigation against Aventis S.A. and Andrx seeking recovery of overpayments due to Defendants' alleged anticompetitive conduct in the market for Cardizem CD®. After these Plaintiffs elected to opt-out of underlying indirect purchaser class litigation and after intensive opt-out litigation, a successful settlement was achieved.
  • In re: Cardizem CD Litigation, MDL No. 1278 (E.D. Mich.). Counsel for Plaintiff class members Kaiser, United Healthcare, Blue Cross and Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, Blue Shield of Massachusetts, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota, and Excellus Health Plan, Inc. in conjunction with complex antitrust litigation seeking recovery of overpayments for Cardizem CD® and related products based on alleged anticompetitive conduct of Defendants relative to a "reverse" payment settlement whereby Aventis would pay Andrx (the maker of an FDA-approved, therapeutically equivalent, generic substitute for Cardizem CD®) millions of dollars to delay the entry of the less-expensive Andrx product.  After extensive litigation, the case settled and multi-million recoveries were achieved for those electing to participate in the settlement, while others (as referenced above) elected to opt-out and pursued successful independent recovery litigation.
  • In re: Lorazepam & Clorazepate Litigation, MDL Docket No. 1290, Misc. No. 99-ms-00276 (D.D.C). Counsel for Plaintiff class members, including 17 health insurers/third party payors in conjunction with complex antitrust litigation against Mylan Laboratories, Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Gyma Corporation, and Cambrex Corporation seeking recovery of overpayments due to Defendants' anticompetitive conduct in the markets for lorazepam (generic equivalent of Ativan®) and clorazepate (generic equivalent of Tranxene®). The indirect purchaser component of the settlement was approximately $35 million. Although the majority of the individual member of our group elected to participate in the settlement, some of our health plan/payor clients, including HCSC (as referenced above) elected to opt-out and pursued successful independent recovery litigation.
  • Blue Cross of California, et al. v.SmithKline Beecham, et al., Case No. 97-cv-01795 (D. Conn.). Plaintiffs' Counsel for a large group of 37 health insurers/third party payors against SmithKline Beecham for alleged unlawful laboratory services based on RICO and common law fraud claims. After intensive litigation, a substantial settlement (confidential) was ultimately achieved.
  • In re: Synthroid Marketing Litig., Case No. 1:97-cv- 06017 (N.D. Ill.). Plaintiffs' Counsel for a large group of 18 health insurers/third party payors in conjunction with complex litigation against Knoll Pharmaceutical Company/BASF seeking recovery of overpayments due to alleged anticompetitive conduct of Knoll by misleading physicians and patients into keeping patients on Synthroid® despite knowing that less costly, but equally effective drugs were available. This case resulted in a settlement of $87.4 million settlement with Knoll and its parent company, BASF Corporation, on behalf of a class of all consumers who purchased Synthroid®. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Massachusetts, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan and Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota – opted-out and filed their own case, which ultimately settled on favorable terms.

Miscellaneous Notable Matters

  • State of Florida v. Crosley Green in State of Florida v. Crosley Green, Case No. 051989CF004942AXXX (Cir. Ct. 18th Jud. Cir., Brevard Co., FL). Co-Lead Post-Conviction Counsel in pro bono/death penalty case for Florida inmate, Crosley Green, who had been sentenced death and confined on Death Row, awaiting execution, for 19 years. As a result of our initial efforts, we succeeded in having Mr. Green's death sentence set aside/vacated. Currently, we are pursuing federal habeas and other relief in addition to parole for Mr. Green.
  • Monika Nickerson, et al. v. United States, Case No. 1:03-cv-00909 (D. Col.). Lead Plaintiffs' counsel in medical malpractice case against the United States/U.S. Department of the Army brought under the Federal Tort Claims Act. After extensive litigation and prior to trial, a successful settlement was achieved.
  • Matthew Dahl, et al. v. United States, (D.D.C.). Lead Plaintiffs' counsel in medical malpractice case against the United States/U.S. Department of the Army brought under the Federal Tort Claims Act. The case resulted in a successful settlement in favor of Plaintiffs of more than $1.5 million.
  • Chesapeake Center, Inc. v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina, et al., (Circuit Court, Fairfax Co., VA). Lead Defense Counsel for Anthem Blue and Blue Shield in a case involving a payment dispute under the federal TRICARE Program where Anthem served as an intermediary. After extensive litigation, the case against Anthem was dismissed.
  • Medassist-Op, Inc. v. Donna Shalala, et al, Case No. 1:00-cv-01829 (D.D.C.). Lead Defense Counsel for AdminaStar Federal ina case involving a payment dispute under federal health programs where AdminaStar Federal served as an intermediary. After extensive litigation, the case against AdminaStar Federal was dismissed.
  • Keila Duncan, et al. v. United States, Case No. 97-cv-01248 (D. Md.). Co-Lead Defense/Trial Counsel for the U.S. Department of the Navy in medical malpractice (obstetrical/wrongful death) case brought against the Navy under the Federal Tort Claims Act. The case was tried to judgment in favor of the U.S. Government/U.S. Department of the Navy.

Professional Associations

  • American Bar Association: (ABA Advisory Board Member, 2006 - present) Criminal Law, Health Law, Litigation, and Administrative Law and Regulatory Practice Sections (past Vice Chair, Criminal Process Committee)
  • American Health Lawyers Association: Fraud & Abuse, Self-Referrals, and False Claims Section
    Bar Association of the District of Columbia
  • Food and Drug Law Institute
  • Vermont Bar Association

Community/Civic/Volunteer Work

The Oasis School (Sultan Hamud, Kenya), Member, International Board of Directors

Background image