Timeline: A Seven-Year Ordeal
2000
May
H. Dean Steinke, the Relator, a district sales manager in Michigan for Merck, complains about suspected kickbacks.
October
Mr. Steinke meets with qui tam whistleblower attorneys to assess a possible False Claims Act ("FCA") case.
November 3
Mr. Steinke's qui tam whistleblower attorneys meet for the first time with an Assistant U.S. Attorney ("AUSA") in Philadelphia, the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ("EDPA"), to discuss the case.
November 16
Qui tam whistleblower attorneys meet for second time with the AUSA to discuss the case.
December 6
A federal Complaint is filed under seal by the qui tam whistleblower team in the EDPA. More than 120 MB of data and 6,500 pages of evidence are turned over to the Government.
Three AUSAs interview Mr. Steinke.
2001
January 15
An AUSA in Philadelphia interviews Mr. Steinke over a two-day period.
February 2
Mr. Steinke's qui tam whistleblower lawyers and an AUSA from the EDPA meet in Washington, D.C.
May
The qui tam whistleblower attorneys develop a proposed subpoena for Merck documents.
2002
February
Mr. Steinke's qui tam whistleblower attorneys seek Court permission to give their Complaint to the States.
April through December
Numerous supplemental disclosure statements are filed, highlighting newly-discovered evidence and results of ongoing investigations.
2003
January
Qui tam whistleblower attorneys win permission to provide the Complaint to States' attorneys general so that the States may play active roles in the investigation.
March 27
Mr. Steinke's qui tam legal team presents the case to Illinois' Office of Attorney General.
May 15
The qui tam whistleblower attorneys meet with the EDPA AUSA.
July
The legal team meets with California's Office of Attorney General.
September
The legal team prepares witness examinations to help the EDPA AUSA with departed Merck executives' interviews.
October
The qui tam whistleblower legal team accelerates its work with the States, furnishing key documents and analyses to interested Medicaid Fraud Control Units ("MFCU's").
December
The States are served with a comprehensive supplemental disclosure prepared by Mr. Steinke's qui tam whistleblower attorneys, which highlights key aspects of Merck's alleged marketing fraud.
2004
March
The qui tam whistleblower legal team urges the States to pursue a coordinated multi-state investigation, in cooperation with the Federal investigation.
May-June
The qui tam whistleblower attorneys work with the EDPA AUSA to pursue greater coordination with the States.
July
The legal team meets in Philadelphia with the AUSA assigned to the case. The AUSA reveals that more than 1.5 million pages of documents have been turned over by Merck. Due to the vast size of the production, the AUSA asks the legal team and Mr. Steinke for help in reviewing the material. Over the next several months, the AUSA and the legal team work on how and when the team can review Merck's confidential documents.
September
The qui tam whistleblower team and Mr. Steinke meet with the AUSA in Philadelphia to discuss the Best Price allegations.
Drug industry expert Greg Hamilton is brought onto the legal team by the qui tam whistleblower lawyers. Hamilton helps the attorneys analyze Merck's pricing theory and helps develop and present evidence to the Government.
October
The qui tam whistleblower legal team compiles trial notebooks based on the evidence Mr. Steinke provided the Government. The trial notebooks detail the evidence supporting Mr. Steinke's claims and the theories of recovery. The trial notebooks are provided to the EDPA AUSA.
December 8
Mr. Steinke and his qui tam whistleblower attorneys travel to Nevada to present his case to the Chief Deputy Attorney General Tim Terry, head of the State's Medicaid Fraud Control Unit.
2005
January
The legal team confers with Terry about bringing a Best Price case under Nevada's FCA.
January
The legal team meets with the State of Texas Attorney General's Office to discuss their entering the Merck case.
February
The legal team and Mr. Steinke spend two weeks in Philadelphia reviewing some of the 440 boxes of documents produced by Merck.
March
The qui tam whistleblower legal team discusses Best Price theory with the Texas Attorney General's Office. The team, along with Mr. Steinke and drug expert Greg Hamilton, travel to Austin for two days of meetings.
March
Texas agrees to demand documents from Merck.
April
The Nevada FCA case is filed and the State's Attorney General intervenes. The case is unsealed and made public.
Mr. Steinke must inform his current employer that he is a whistleblower.
May 20
Mr. Steinke's qui tam whistleblower legal team meets with MFCU representatives from Nevada, Texas, Illinois and Massachusetts to discuss Merck's Best Price violations.
June
Mr. Steinke and his legal team travel to Philadelphia for meetings with the EDPA AUSA and to continue reviewing Merck's documents.
June 8
Texas issues its first document demand to Merck.
July 1-13
After two weeks of intense preparation, the EDPA AUSA, Mr. Steinke and his qui tam whistleblower legal team, including Greg Hamilton, deliver a half-day presentation to the National Association of Medicaid Fraud Control Units (NAMFCU).
July 20
Merck moves to dismiss the Nevada suit, claiming its Best Price marketing was legal, and also arguing that only the Federal Government, not the States, could prosecute Merck for this scheme.
August – September
The legal team works closely with a NAMFCU investigative task force as it evaluates Mr. Steinke's EDPA case. The qui tam whistleblower legal team prepares draft requests to hospitals and determines evidence most helpful to advance the case among the States.
Mr. Steinke's legal team works with NAMFCU to get States to file supporting briefs in Nevada case. The team works with the amici in drafting and editing a brief. The team also works with the EDPA AUSA to obtain a letter in support of Nevada's right to prosecute Merck under State law for Best Price violations.
August 21
The qui tam whistleblower attorneys meet with the Office of the California Attorney General to propose making coordinated requests for hospital drug-pricing data.
August 31
Mr. Steinke and his qui tam whistleblower attorneys spend three days in Philadelphia. They continue to review mountains of documents and consult with the EDPA AUSA to refine Best Price allegations.
September 27
Along with the Attorney General of Nevada, the qui tam whistleblower legal team files an opposition to Merck's Motion to Dismiss, along with a proposed First Amended Complaint.
October 26
The legal team travels to Washington, D.C., and discusses with the EDPA AUSA coordinating the case among all 50 states. The attorneys also review additional documents recently produced by Merck.
2006
January - February
The qui tam whistleblower attorneys continue working with the Attorney General's Office in Texas in its investigation.
January 20
Merck files a second motion to dismiss the Nevada Complaint.
January 20 – February 23
The qui tam whistleblower legal team and Nevada prepare their opposition to Merck's second motion to dismiss.
January 25 – March 15
The legal team works with the EDPA AUSA developing a presentation that the AUSA will make to Merck on its liability and damages for the alleged Medicaid fraud.
March 6
Delaware, Illinois, Texas, and the District of Columbia file amici briefs in Nevada supporting Mr. Steinke and Nevada's position opposing Merck's motion to dismiss.
May 31
Nevada U.S. District Judge Howard D. McKibben denies Merck's motion to dismiss. Judge McKibben fully adopts Nevada's and Mr. Steinke's legal arguments. Judge McKibben decides that Merck should have reported Vioxx and Zocor nominal price marketing discounts to CMS as part of the manufacturer's Medicaid Best Price calculation.
June 2
The qui tam whistleblower attorneys participate in a conference call with representatives of the U.S. Department of Justice, the EDPA AUSA, and the NAMFCU negotiating team regarding settlement prospects in light of the Nevada decision.
July 5
Merck asks the Nevada court to reconsider its decision.
July 17 – August 20
The qui tam whistleblower attorneys work with the EDPA AUSA and the NAMFCU negotiating team to calculate damages.
August 28 – 31
The qui tam whistleblower team spends three days in Texas analyzing documents produced by Merck and helping prepare the Texas Attorney General's Office for examinations of Merck executives.
October 4 – 5
The qui tam whistleblower attorneys, the EDPA AUSA, and the NAMFCU negotiating team, as well as other interested States, meet in Washington, D.C. with Merck representatives to reach an agreement in principle to settle Mr. Steinke's cases.
October 2006-January 2008
The NAMFCU negotiating team and the EDPA U.S. Attorney's Office (USAO) work on getting final approval of the agreement in principal. The qui tam whistleblower attorneys work with the EDPA USAO, the U.S. DOJ, the NAMFCU negotiating team, as well as other interested States, and Merck representatives, among others, to finalize the settlement. The United States and all the States formally announce the settlement of Mr. Steinke's qui tam cases against Merck.
|