United States v. Automated Medical Laboratories, Inc.
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
770 F.2d 399 (1985)
- Written by Robert Cane, JD
Facts
Automated Medical Laboratories, Incorporated (AML) (defendant) owned and operated Richmond Plasma Corporation, a commercial plasmapheresis center. Richmond Plasma collected and sold plasma. Hugo Partucci, Noberto Queris, and Pedro Ramos (defendants) all managed or oversaw Richmond Plasma’s compliance with Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations. The three men served in various roles for AML and Richmond Plasma with respect to FDA compliance. Led by Partucci, AML’s compliance team regularly inspected Richmond Plasma in advance of FDA inspections. When problems were found, the compliance team often instructed Richmond Plasma employees to falsify records in order to protect the company from the FDA finding violations. The falsification of records continued even after Partucci left AML. Eventually, Richmond Plasma employees reported the misconduct to the FDA. The FDA commenced an investigation. Soon after, compliance-team members reported the misconduct to a vice president at AML. The FDA completed its investigation, which ultimately resulted in criminal prosecution of AML, Richmond Plasma, Partucci, Queris, and Ramos. AML was convicted of one count of conspiracy and three counts of making and using false documents. AML appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Sneeden, 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.
