United Healthcare Services, Inc. v. AmerisourceBergen Corporation

Background

United Healthcare Services, Inc. (UHS) alleged that, from approximately 2001 through 2014, the defendants operated a pre-filled-syringe program involving oncology drugs. According to the complaint, Medical Initiatives, Inc. drew drugs from manufacturer vials, reused excess product, and prepared syringes in facilities that UHS alleged did not comply with federal manufacturing requirements. UHS also alleged that the defendants paid physicians rebates connected to purchases of Procrit.

UHS reimbursed claims submitted by healthcare providers or patients for syringes administered to people insured under UHS programs. UHS acknowledged that the defendants did not themselves submit claims to government healthcare programs or insurers.

The opinion states that the conduct had been the subject of government investigations, public disclosures, a 2017 criminal case, and a 2018 civil settlement. UHS filed this action in 2023 and asserted five claims: common-law fraud; violations of the Minnesota Consumer Fraud Act, the Minnesota Unlawful Trade Practices Act, and Minnesota’s statute concerning deceptive acts against senior citizens; and unjust enrichment or money had and received.

Legal standard

The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint does not adequately state a legally valid claim. The court generally assumes the complaint’s factual allegations are true at this stage, but it need not accept conclusory allegations or legal conclusions. Fraud-based claims must also describe the alleged fraud with particularity, including who made the statements, what was said or done, when and where it occurred, and how it was fraudulent.

A court may grant a motion to dismiss based on the statute of limitations when the complaint itself establishes that the claims were filed too late.

Statute of limitations for the statutory claims

The court held that Counts II through IV were governed by a six-year limitations period. The alleged statutory violations occurred no later than 2014, so the limitations period ended no later than 2020. The parties’ agreement extending the filing period by 240 days did not make the claims timely; using the parties’ agreed relation-back date of January 22, 2023, the claims were still late.

UHS argued that fraudulent concealment should pause the limitations period. The court rejected that argument, concluding that UHS had not pleaded specific facts showing that the defendants concealed UHS’s causes of action or prevented UHS from discovering them through reasonable diligence. The court pointed to public disclosures, including securities filings, media coverage, and later criminal-charge disclosures. It dismissed Counts II, III, and IV with prejudice.

Unjust enrichment and money had and received

The court applied a six-year limitations period to Count V. For the reasons given regarding the statutory claims, it concluded that Count V was untimely and dismissed it with prejudice.

Common-law fraud

The court held that Count I was subject to a six-year limitations period beginning when the alleged fraud was discovered or could have been discovered through reasonable diligence. It concluded that information relevant to UHS’s claims was publicly available or in UHS’s possession by November 2016 at the latest. Because UHS filed the action in 2023, the common-law fraud claim was untimely, and the court dismissed Count I.

Disposition

The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. It dismissed UHS’s complaint with prejudice and directed that judgment be entered. Because the claims were time-barred, the court did not reach the defendants’ alternative arguments that UHS failed to state a claim for relief.