Friedman v. Sebelius
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
686 F.3d 813 (2012)
- Written by Alex Ruskell, JD
Facts
Michael Friedman (plaintiff) was an executive for the Purdue Frederick Company when it misbranded OxyContin painkillers. Friedman pleaded guilty to misdemeanor misbranding. Misdemeanor misbranding did not require Friedman to have knowledge of the fraud, but under the responsible-corporate-officer doctrine, Friedman could be found guilty because he was responsible as a corporate officer and had the authority to stop the misbranding. Based on Friedman’s guilty plea, the Office of the Inspector General, under the authority of the Secretary of Health and Human Services, determined Friedman should be excluded from the health care industry for 20 years. Friedman appealed to the Departmental Appeals Board, which reduced the exclusion to 12 years. Friedman sued, arguing that he could not be excluded from the health care industry because his actions did not show the required mental state for fraud. Friedman also argued that the 12-year exclusion was arbitrary and capricious because the exclusion did not include a reasoned explanation for excluding him for that long and no one had ever been excluded for longer than 10 years before. The district court ruled in the government’s favor. Friedman appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Ginsburg, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
