• Profile
• Admissions/Affiliations
• Highlights News & Knowledge

Robert Rhoad is a partner resident 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. Robert is co-leader of both the firm's Government Procurement Fraud/False Claims Act and Health Care Litigation Teams. His primary area of specialization 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. Robert has a proven track record of successfully representing both health care entities and government contractors in such cases, including several high-profile cases involving industry-wide ramifications. In addition, Robert has significant experience in the successful representation of health care industry clients as plaintiffs in affirmative litigation to recover damages suffered due to antitrust violations and other 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.

Prior to entering private practice in 1999, Robert 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, Robert gained significant trial experience as lead counsel in numerous felony cases involving complex fraud issues. As a Civil Litigation Attorney, Robert 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. In addition, since 2002, Robert has taught and currently teaches litigation and trial courses as an Adjunct Professor at The George Washington University Law School.

False Claims Act/Qui Tam Matters:

• U.S. ex rel. Robert Purcell v. Moving Water Industries, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:98-CV-02088 (D.D.C.). Lead Defense Counsel for Moving Water Industries, Inc. (MWI) in a qui tam action under the False Claims Act alleging fraud by MWI related to submissions to the Export-Import Bank of the U.S. (Ex-Im) on projects funded by Ex-Im guaranteed loans issued to several Nigerian states for their purchase of pumping equipment manufactured and installed by MWI. Cross-motions for summary judgment and a motion to dismiss the qui tam Relator are currently pending.
• U.S. 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 USAE had 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); U.S. ex rel. Patricia Howard v. USA Environmental, Inc., 2009 WL 652433 (M.D. Fla.) (dismissing FCA retaliation claim and entire case with prejudice).
• U.S. 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/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 was 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 the relators' presentation of evidence during their case-in-chief at 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. SeeU.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. v. John B. Torkelsen, et al., Case No.2:06-CV-05674 (E.D. Pa.). Lead Defense Counsel for individuals, Dr. Propper and Mr. Beharry, 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.
• 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. Appeal to the 4 th Circuit and motions by Defendants to recover attorneys' fees and costs remain 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).
• 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. Although several other subjects of the Government's investigation eventually entered criminal pleas and/or reached multi-million dollar civil settlements with the Government (involving Corporate Integrity Agreements), 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 as a result of our effective advocacy during the investigation stage of the case.
• U.S. ex rel. _____ v. _____, (under seal) (S.D. Ohio). 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). 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 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 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