Fifth Circuit Affirms Government Dismissal of Cases Brought by Corporate Whistleblower

The government’s most drastic power is its ability to dismiss the case entirely.

Recently, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit sided with the government in its bid to dismiss a whistleblower case brought by a limited liability company against pharmaceutical giants Eli Lilly and Bayer.

The case offers another example of the government flexing its dismissal power in the wake of the Granston Memo, a 2018 Department of Justice directive to winnow False Claims Act cases that don’t align with government priorities. It also reflects the government’s skepticism of certain “professional” whistleblowers, offering guidance for the would-be corporate whistleblower. 

The Government’s Dismissal Power Under the False Claims Act

The False Claims Act’s qui tam provision allows private parties, known as relators, to sue on behalf of the United States when the government has been defrauded. Although the point of the statute is to empower citizens to assist the government’s fraud-fighting efforts, the government maintains significant control over the scope of that assistance. For example, if the government opts to join a relator’s lawsuit, the government assumes the “primary responsibility” for prosecuting the case, can seek to limit the relator’s participation in it, and can even settle the case over the relator’s objections. Even when the government doesn’t join the lawsuit and the relator goes it alone, the government nonetheless can seek to stay the case and overrule any dismissal sought by the relator, among other interventions. 

But the government’s most drastic power is its ability to dismiss the case entirely. The circuit courts are split on what the government must show to dismiss a case. The D.C. Circuit says the government has “unfettered discretion” to dismiss cases, while the Ninth and Tenth circuits have required the government to at least offer a valid government purpose served by the dismissal. The Seventh Circuit recently weighed in with a standard approximating unfettered discretion. Regardless of the test used, the outcome is generally the same: if the government wants the case thrown out, a court will agree to toss it. 

The government’s dismissal power received renewed attention when the Granston Memo was issued setting forth guidelines for when the government should move to nix a relator’s case. It specifically called out cases that lack merit or otherwise interfere with federal policies. In the three years following the memo’s issuance, federal courts granted 25 government motions to dismiss – up from six motions in the two years preceding the memo. 

The Fifth Circuit’s Decision and The “Professional” Relator

A decent portion of those recently dismissed cases were brought by “shell companies” established by National Health Care Analysis Group (NHCA), which is itself a partnership comprised of several limited liability companies set up by investors. The Fifth Circuit’s recent decision addressed two of those lawsuits brought by relator Health Choice Group, LLC, an NHCA shell company, against Eli Lilly and Bayer. In each case, Health Choice alleged that the pharmaceutical companies violated the Anti-Kickback Statute by offering perks to providers for prescribing their drugs. According to Health Choice, the perks included assistance with insurance billing and free nurse visits for patients to teach them how to use defendants’ drugs. 

Nearly a year after declining to intervene in the lawsuits, the government successfully moved to dismiss them. The Fifth Circuit affirmed on appeal, declining to actually adopt a standard for government dismissals, but nonetheless concluding that the dismissals served legitimate governmental purposes. Specifically, the court explained that the government had properly concluded that the costs of continued litigation outweighed any potential benefit from the lawsuits. Perhaps more notably, the court also approved of the government’s determination that the allegedly unlawful practices were “not only beneficial, but also lawful.” Federal healthcare programs, the government argued, were served, not harmed, when pharmaceutical companies provided patients “with greater access to product education and support.”

While not emphasized by the Fifth Circuit, the government made plain that it had limited patience for NHCA, an entity it deemed a “professional relator” that had filed 11 qui tam actions in courts across the country, levying nearly identical allegations against various pharmaceutical companies. The government specifically disapproved of NHCA’s investigatory methods. To develop their allegations, NHCA interviewed current and former employees of the defendants under the auspices of conducting an unbiased “research study” – not developing allegations for qui tam lawsuits. The government openly disapproved of the “false pretenses” used by NHCA to gather the lawsuits’ foundational information.

What This Means for Corporate Whistleblowers

But the government’s decision to nix the NHCA cases and the deference given to that choice by the Fifth Circuit shouldn’t be a death knell for the corporate whistleblower. In an historic first, just last month the Justice Department intervened in a lawsuit brought by the data analysis firm Integra Med Analytics

Integra Med filed a qui tam complaint against a group of nursing homes in New York, alleging improper inflation of Resource Utilization Groups, or RUGs, the system nursing homes use to measure the complexity of care required by a patient (and that Medicare, in turn, uses to reimburse nursing homes for that care). Integra Med undertook a sophisticated analysis of Medicare claims data to determine that certain nursing homes had abnormally high levels of the most severe (and most expensive) RUG scores. It then used statistical modelling to rule out innocent explanations for these anomalies. The government spent several years investigating Integra’s data-driven complaint and filed a complaint-in-intervention laying out complementary allegations of the defendant nursing homes’ knowledge of the RUG fraud. 

In contrast to the Integra Med complaint, which is a tour-de-force of statistical analysis, NHCA’s complaints lead with the fruits of the information gathered form witness interviews conducted under “false pretenses,” and are followed by a relatively simple analysis of claims data showing that providers did, in fact, prescribe defendants’ drugs. NHCA also took a blunderbuss approach, targeting a panoply of pharmaceutical industry actors engaged in similar marketing practices. 

The bottom line is that while NHCA’s business model is to ferret out fraud through data analysis, its cases against Bayer, Eli Lily, and other big pharma companies simply were not data-driven. Corporate whistleblowers – perhaps even NHCA – can expect to have greater success with the government when their allegations are driven by precise data analyses aimed at specific bad actors. 

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn

Mary Inman, Esq.

Mary Inman is a partner and co-founder of Whistleblower Partners LLP, a law firm dedicated to representing whistleblowers under the various U.S. whistleblower reward programs. Mary and her colleagues have pioneered a series of successful whistleblower cases against prominent health insurers, hospitals, provider groups, and vendors under the False Claims Act alleging manipulation of the risk scores of Medicare Advantage patients. Mary is a recognized expert and frequent author, commentator, and speaker on frauds in the healthcare industry, particularly those exposed by whistleblowers. Mary is a member of the RACmonitor editorial board and a popular panelist on Monitor Monday.

Related Stories

Transparency in Coverage Final Rule

Transparency in Coverage Final Rule

The healthcare industry’s landscape shifted dramatically with the implementation of the Transparency in Coverage (TiC) Final Rule. For compliance professionals navigating this regulatory terrain, understanding

Read More

Leave a Reply

Please log in to your account to comment on this article.

Featured Webcasts

2026 IPPS Masterclass 3: Master MS-DRG Shifts and NTAPs

2026 IPPS Masterclass Day 3: MS-DRG Shifts and NTAPs

This third session in our 2026 IPPS Masterclass will feature a review of FY26 changes to the MS-DRG methodology and new technology add-on payments (NTAPs), presented by nationally recognized ICD-10 coding expert Christine Geiger, MA, RHIA, CCS, CRC, with bonus insights and analysis from Dr. James Kennedy.

August 14, 2025
2026 IPPS Masterclass Day 2: Master ICD-10-PCS Changes

2026 IPPS Masterclass Day 2: Master ICD-10-PCS Changes

This second session in our 2026 IPPS Masterclass will feature a review the FY26 changes to ICD-10-PCS codes. This information will be presented by nationally recognized ICD-10 coding expert Christine Geiger, MA, RHIA, CCS, CRC, with bonus insights and analysis from Dr. James Kennedy.

August 13, 2025
2026 IPPS Masterclass 1: Master ICD-10-CM Changes

2026 IPPS Masterclass Day 1: Master ICD-10-CM Changes

This first session in our 2026 IPPS Masterclass will feature an in-depth explanation of FY26 changes to ICD-10-CM codes and guidelines, CCs/MCCs, and revisions to the MCE, presented by presented by nationally recognized ICD-10 coding expert Christine Geiger, MA, RHIA, CCS, CRC, with bonus insights and analysis from Dr. James Kennedy.

August 12, 2025

Trending News

Featured Webcasts

The Two-Midnight Rule: New Challenges, Proven Strategies

The Two-Midnight Rule: New Challenges, Proven Strategies

RACmonitor is proud to welcome back Dr. Ronald Hirsch, one of his most requested webcasts. In this highly anticipated session, Dr. Hirsch will break down the complex Two Midnight Rule Medicare regulations, translating them into clear, actionable guidance. He’ll walk you through the basics of the rule, offer expert interpretation, and apply the rule to real-world clinical scenarios—so you leave with greater clarity, confidence, and the tools to ensure compliance.

June 19, 2025
Open Door Forum Webcast Series

Open Door Forum Webcast Series

Bring your questions and join the conversation during this open forum series, live every Wednesday at 10 a.m. EST from June 11–July 30. Hosted by Chuck Buck, these fast-paced 30-minute sessions connect you directly with top healthcare experts tackling today’s most urgent compliance and policy issues.

June 11, 2025
Open Door Forum: The Changing Face of Addiction: Coding, Compliance & Care

Open Door Forum: The Changing Face of Addiction: Coding, Compliance & Care

Substance abuse is everywhere. It’s a complicated diagnosis with wide-ranging implications well beyond acute care. The face of addiction continues to change so it’s important to remember not just the addict but the spectrum of extended victims and the other social determinants and legal ramifications. Join John K. Hall, MD, JD, MBA, FCLM, FRCPC, for a critical Q&A on navigating substance abuse in 2025.  Register today and be a part of the conversation!

July 16, 2025

Trending News

Happy National Doctor’s Day! Learn how to get a complimentary webcast on ‘Decoding Social Admissions’ as a token of our heartfelt appreciation! Click here to learn more →

CYBER WEEK IS HERE! Don’t miss your chance to get 20% off now until Dec. 2 with code CYBER24