Dantzig v. Slater

Background

Paul Dantzig brought this action without a lawyer against James Slater, M.D.; NYU Langone (Tisch) Hospital; Abbott Laboratories; and Medtronic Corporation. He asserted claims under the Federal Anti-Kickback Statute and the False Claims Act and sought damages.

Dantzig alleged that, between 2015 and 2019, Slater, whom Dantzig identified as the head of NYU Langone’s cardiac catheterization lab, received 99 payments from Abbott and Medtronic totaling $685,000. Dantzig alleged that the payments were reported as research funding even though they were not provided in the usual form and were not properly handled under institutional review board requirements.

Dantzig further alleged that the payments influenced Slater to use Abbott and Medtronic stents, including larger stents than necessary. He alleged that during his March 23, 2018 cardiac surgery, Slater directed the use of a 38-millimeter Abbott stent, after which Dantzig developed severe complications. Dantzig also alleged that the defendants used the payments to bill Medicare fraudulently for unnecessary or improperly coded stents, causing millions of dollars in costs over four years.

Court’s analysis

The court explained that the Federal Anti-Kickback Statute prohibits paying or receiving certain payments intended to influence recommendations involving items covered by a federal health-care program. But the statute does not create a private right of action, meaning that an individual cannot sue directly under that statute based only on an alleged violation.

The court therefore treated Dantzig’s allegations as claims under the False Claims Act based on alleged Anti-Kickback Statute violations. The False Claims Act permits a private person, called a relator, to sue on behalf of the United States for knowingly submitting false or fraudulent claims to the federal government. The court held, however, that a person proceeding without a lawyer lacks statutory standing to bring such claims. Those claims must be asserted by a litigant represented by an attorney.

Disposition

The court dismissed the action for lack of statutory standing, without prejudice to any claims Dantzig asserted on behalf of others. It granted Dantzig 30 days to find an attorney to represent him. The court denied Dantzig leave to file an amended complaint without a lawyer asserting claims under the False Claims Act because it considered that amendment futile. If an attorney did not file a notice of appearance within the allowed period, the court stated that it would enter judgment dismissing the action for the reason discussed in the order.

The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free appeal status. The clerk was directed to mail the order to Dantzig and note service on the docket.