|
|
Daily Case Update Archive
As a service to our members, we monitor opinions issued from the
Ohio Supreme Court, the
Ohio State First District
Court of Appeals, and the United
States Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. You can read
the latest summaries or archived summaries from
2005 or
2006.
If you would like to receive a daily e-mail with same-day case updates,
please join our Members-Only
discussion list. Not a member?
Join today!
April 11, 2006
Ohio Supreme Court
| Ohio First District |
U.S. 6th Circuit - Ohio | U.S. 6th Circuit - Other States
TOPICS:
- Civil rights
- False Claims Act
- Ohio Supreme Court
-
-
No Opinions.
- First District Court of Appeals
- [Search Other Ohio Districts]
-
No Opinions.
-
U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals: Ohio Cases
-
-
No Opinions.
- U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals: Other States Cases
-
-
Gregory v. Louisville (April 11, 2006) Appeal from W.D. Kentucky
-
http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0127p-06.pdf
- Plaintiff, William Thomas Gregory, and Defendants cross appeal
March 29, 2004 and June 22, 2004 orders entered by the United States
District Court for the Western District of Kentucky which ruled on the
parties' cross-motions for summary judgment in this action by Plaintiff
for violations of his civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and various
state laws. The orders below dismissed Plaintiff's claims entirely
against the municipal and supervisory Defendants, denied other
Defendants absolute or qualified immunity, and dismissed certain claims
as unsupported by the record. For the reasons set forth below, this
Court AFFIRMS in part and REVERSES in part the orders of the district
court.
USA v. Diabetes Treatment (April 11, 2006) Appeal from Tennessee
-
http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0128p-06.pdf
- Appellants West Paces Medical Center ("West Paces") and HCA,
Inc. ("HCA") appeal a discovery order issued by the United States
District Court for the District of Columbia in the case of United States
ex rel. Pogue v. Diabetes Treatment Centers of America, Inc.
Plaintiff-appellee Scott Pogue brought suit under the under the False
Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3729 et seq., alleging that various financial
incentive arrangements between health care providers and referring
physicians violate federal law. Pogue's case was filed in the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee (the
"Tennessee district court"). On October 26, 2000, the Pogue case was
transferred by the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation ("JPMDL"),
along with related cases from at least ten other districts, for
consolidated pretrial proceedings before Judge Royce C. Lamberth in the
United States District Court for the District of Columbia (the "D.C.
district court"). West Paces, a hospital, was one of the original
defendants in the Pogue case, but had the claims against it dismissed on
May 27, 2004, pursuant to a settlement agreement. The Pogue case
continues, however, against Diabetes Treatment Centers of America, Inc.
("DTCA"). HCA, a health care provider with approximately 191 affiliated
hospitals worldwide, wholly owns West Paces. Pogue maintains that both
West Paces and other HCA-owned hospitals maintained illegal
relationships with DTCA. In addition to being the corporate parent of
West Paces and the corporate parent of other hospitals allegedly
connected to DTCA, HCA is itself a party defendant in many of the other
multi-district litigation ("MDL") cases that have been consolidated
before Judge Lamberth along with the Pogue case. The consolidated
litigation is collectively captioned In re Columbia/HCA Healthcare Corp.
Qui Tam Litigation, No. 10-MS-50 (JPMDL No. 1307). Despite these
connections, HCA has never technically been a party to the Pogue case.
During discovery, HCA inadvertently disclosed certain documents to
Pogue. Before Pogue could copy the documents, however, HCA recovered
them and asserted that it would not reproduce them because they were
privileged attorney-client communications. The district court's order,
which forms the basis of this appeal, compels HCA to turn over to Pogue
the previously disclosed documents and further orders that any privilege
over the subject matter of the disclosed documents has been waived. For
the following reasons, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
|
Daily Case Updates
|