X hits on this document

576 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

66 / 147

Manufacturers knew and intended that "preferred" medication prescriptions for long-term care

facility residents serviced by Omnicare would be submitted as false claims by Omnicare and

reimbursed by Medicaid or other government programs.

226.

Because the

Defendant Manufacturers

and Omnicare

conspired to

submit false

claims the Defendant Manufacturers are also liable under 31 U.S.C. §3729(a)(3).

227.

The

Defendant

Manufacturers'

illegal

scheme,

rife

with

false

statements

and

fraudulent conduct, had one intended purpose and result - increasing sales - and therefore claims

for their "prefelTed" drugs instead of cheaper alternatives were submitted for payment from the

government.

228.

The Plaintiff States have enacted their own False Claims Acts, modeled after

these provisions of Federal False Claims Act as the federal False Claims Act applies to fi'aud

against the federal government, and, therefore, does not cover the States' share of Medicaid

spending. The Plaintiff States' False Claims Acts contain language that mirrors the prohibitions

set

forth

in

§§3729

(a)(l),

(2),

and

(3)

of

the

federal

False

Claims

Act.

See

e.g.,

Illinois

Whistleblower Reward and Protection Act, §3(a)(l), (2), and (3); Virginia Fraud Against

Taxpayers Act, §8.01-216.3 A(l), (2), and (3); Indiana False Claims and Whistleblower

Protection, §5-ll-5.5-2B (7) and (8); Nevada Submission of False Claims to State or Local

Government, §357.040 (l)(a), (b) and (c). Hence, each and every violation of the Federal False

Claims Act alleged herein likewise give rise to actionable claims under each of the Plaintiffs'

States False Claims Acts, as alleged in detail in the Counts below.

62

Document info
Document views576
Page views576
Page last viewedSat Dec 10 08:25:03 UTC 2016
Pages147
Paragraphs7751
Words41508

Comments