United States ex rel. Tucker v. Nayak


2008 WL 907432, *2 (S.D.Ill. Case No. 06-CV-662-JPG, April 2, 2008)

The FCA whistleblower moved to amend her complaint. The Defendant, Dr. Nayak, objected, arguing that amendment was futile as the amendment still failed to plead with the particularity required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 9(b). The Court, reviewing the proposed amended complaint, found that while some of the allegations were plead with sufficient detail, others were not. Rather than finding that the whistleblower had demonstrated sufficient reliability to allow the entire complaint to be filed, the Court allowed only the claims supported with allegations that met the Rule’s “who, what, where, and when” requirements, while not allowing the remainder of the claims to be filed.

David Honig, of Hall, Render, Killian, Heath & Lyman, and Andrew Martone, of Hesse Martone, represented the Defendants represented the Defendant, P.D.L. Nayak, M.D.

For more information, please contact David B. Honig at dhonig@hallrender.com or (317) 977-1447.