Whistleblower Wins Key Ruling Against Celgene in Lawsuit Over Off-Label Drug Promotion

by Jay P. Holland
January 17th, 2017

Whistleblowers and those who support and represent them will be pleased and energized by a December 28, 2016, ruling by U.S. District Judge George H. King of the Central District of California in a case involving the unapproved, or off-label, marketing of prescription drugs.

Doctors are generally allowed to prescribe prescription drugs for uses that haven’t been approved by the Food and Drug Administration, but pharma companies are barred under federal law from marketing drugs to doctors for these unapproved uses.

In this case, Celgene, a major biotech company, was targeted by a former employee, Beverly Brown, who blew the whistle on the company’s marketing practices. Brown alleged that Celgene promoted two of its prescription drugs, Thalomid and Revlimid, for use in cancer patients, an application that the FDA had not approved.

Brown was hired by Celgene in April 2001, essentially in a sales and marketing capacity. In late 2007, she became concerned when her manager instructed her to call doctors to ask them to change the billing codes associated with prescriptions of Celgene’s drugs. Brown complained to management about the practice, which she believed was illegal. She later contacted the FDA, and in 2010, she filed a qui tam case against Celgene on behalf of the federal government, 24 states, the District of Columbia, and the City of Chicago.

In her complaint, she alleged that Celgene illegally promoted Thalomid and Revlimid to doctors for unapproved uses. She invoked the federal False Claims Act and similar state laws.

The theory behind her case, as is typical in whistleblower cases, was that the federal government and state governments spent money on these drugs for their unapproved uses under the Medicare and Medicaid programs and other health-care programs. Since these uses were unapproved, each claim for reimbursement by Celgene under a health-care program constituted a false claim under these laws, Brown asserted.

Celgene sought summary judgment, but Judge King rejected that motion and found that a reasonable jury could conclude in Brown’s favor – so that case can and will proceed.

The judge wrote, “Brown’s evidence shows that Celgene engaged in a systematic campaign to promote off-label uses of Thalomid and Revlimid, that physicians who received more promotional contacts prescribed at a higher rate than those who received fewer contacts, that Celgene knew its promotional activities were delivering results, and that marketing to doctors is generally effective.”

Looking carefully and precisely at the very complex Medicare statute, Judge King squarely concluded that “Medicare claims that seek reimbursement for non-medically accepted uses are false as a matter of law.” 

Revlimid’s total sales in 2015 were $5.8 billion, and the case against Celgene is estimated to have involved hundreds of thousands of prescriptions, so the stakes are very high in this case. What’s more, Judge King has delivered an unequivocal statement that the False Claims Act has a major role to play in challenging off-label uses of prescription drugs.

Proudly displayed in Jay Holland’s office is a plaque that reads: “The Best Lawyer a Client Could Ever Have.” The customized award was a gift from a client at the end of a seven-and-a-half–year legal battle. The success wasn’t just winning the case in court; it was also serving as a loyal ally, protector, and advocate for the client throughout his long journey to achieve justice.

Contact Jay Holland

The use of the Internet or this form for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be sent through this form.


The JGL Law Blog is made available by the Firm and/or the law firm publisher for educational purposes only as well as to give you general information and a general understanding of the law. The JGL Law Blog is not designed to and does not provide specific legal advice. Use of, or comments on, this Blog does not create an Attorney Client Relationship with the Firm or any of the authors of the Blog Posts.

This blog is for general informational purposes only. Joseph, Greenwald & Laake, PA is a law firm and some of the information on the blog relates to legal topics. Joseph, Greenwald & Laake, PA does not offer or dispense legal advice through this blog or by e-mails directed to or from this site. By using the blog, the reader agrees that the information on this blog does not constitute legal or other professional advice and no attorney-client or other relationship is created between the reader and Joseph, Greenwald & Laake, PA or its attorneys. The blog is not a substitute for obtaining legal advice from a qualified attorney licensed in your state. The information on the blog may be changed without notice and is not guaranteed to be complete, correct or up-to-date. While the blog is revised on a regular basis, it may not reflect the most current legal developments. The opinions expressed at or through the blog are the opinions of the individual author and may not reflect the opinions of the firm or any individual attorney. The JGL Law Blog should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed professional attorney in your state.

To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the U.S. Internal Revenue Service in Circular 230, we inform you that any tax advice contained on this site (including any links provided) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the U.S. Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing, or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed in this communication.