The federal courts retained jurisdiction over a lawsuit by a state Medicaid agency against a drug manufacturer notwithstanding that the only remaining claim was for violation of a state consumer protection law. The litigation originally included theories of Medicaid fraud and common law fraudulent misrepresentation, and federal jurisdiction was based on the substantial federal law issues presented by the state's claims, so that removal to federal court was proper. This case is one of many state lawsuits arising from similar conduct which have been combined in multi-district litigation in order to promote national uniformity, and the federal court has been extensively involved in overseeing complex discovery issues. Therefore, the interests of judicial economy, convenience, fairness and comity are served by continued federal jurisdiction, and there is little risk that retention of federal jurisdiction would lead to a flood of federal lawsuits adding to the workload of the federal courts. Although the remaining issue is based on a state statute, that statute explicitly provides for interpretation and application consistent with similar federal statutes. The state agency's request to remand the matter to state court was denied.
Source: State of West Virginia ex rel. McGraw v. Eli Lilly & Company, E.D. N.Y., Sept. 30, 2008.
For more information on this and related topics, consult the CCH® Medicare and Medicaid Guide.
Visit our News Library to read more news stories.
