United States v. Zimmer, Inc (2004)
green
· 186 citation events
across 31 courts.
Showing the 50 strongest citers on record
(one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 2004 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
200420152026
Sort:
By significance ·
Most recent
green
Chris O'Bier v. TidalHealth Nanticoke Inc (2022)
Schmidt v. Zimmer, Inc., 386 F.3d 235, 242 (3d Cir. 2004)), cert. denied, 140 S. Ct. 2720 (2020); 31 U.S.C. § 3729 (a).
green
USA, ex rel. v. UPMC (2019)
Schmidt v. Zimmer, Inc., 386 F.3d 235, 241 (3d Cir. 2004).
green
United States v. UPMC (2019)
Schmidt v. Zimmer, Inc., 386 F.3d 235, 241 (3d Cir. 2004).
green
Ronald Streck v. Allergan Inc (2018)
Schmidt v. Zimmer, Inc., 386 F.3d 235, 240 (3d Cir. 2004) (citations omitted). 3 We note that our reasoning applies equally to Streck’s claims brought under the federal FCA and the FCAs of the various states.
citations omitted
Schmidt v. Zimmer, Inc., 386 F.3d 235, 244 (3d Cir. 2004)).
green
United States Ex Rel. Thomas v. Siemens AG (2014)
Schmidt v. Zimmer, Inc., 386 F.3d 235, 242 (3d Cir.2004); Hutchins v. Wilentz, Goldman & Spitzer, 253 F.3d 176, 182 (3d Cir.2001); Harrison v. Westinghouse Savannah River Co., 176 F.3d 776, 785 (4th Cir.1999).
For example, the defendant in Schmidt, 386 F.3d at 244, allegedly directly created and pursued a marketing kickback scheme targeting health care providers and causing them to file false claims that did not report the kickbacks.
green
SCHIEBER v. HOLY REDEEMER HEALTHCARE SYSTEM, INC. (2024)
To the extent Relator must show that this inflation of patient metrics “was a normal consequence of the situation created by [Defendant HCHB’s] scheme,” see Schmidt, 386 F.3d at 245 , the FAC contends that the SaaS application was intentionally designed and marketed as a tool to raise revenues, FAC ¶¶ 20, 55; ECF No. 39 at 21; see also Schmidt, 386 F.3d at 244 (“Zimmer created and pursued a marketing scheme that it knew would, if successful, result in the submission . . . of…
“Zimmer created and pursued a marketing scheme that it knew would, if successful, result in the submission . . . of compliance certifications required by Medicare that Zimmer knew would be false.”
green
United States ex rel. Spay v. CVS Caremark Corp. (2012)
Schmidt v. Zimmer, Inc., 386 F.3d 235, 242 (3d Cir. 2004); Hutchins v. Wilentz, Goldman & Spitzer, 253 F.3d 176, 182 (3d Cir.2001)).
green
FREEDMAN v. BAYADA HOME HEALTH CARE, INC. (2025)
Schmidt v. Zimmer, Inc., 386 F.3d 235, 242 (3d Cir. 2004)).
Zimmer, Inc., 386 F.3d 235, 242 (3d Cir. 2004).
green
COLLADO v. BRACCO, S.P.A. (2022)
Kosenske v. Carlisle HMA, Inc., 554 F.3d 88, 94 (3d Cir. 2009); see also Schmidt, 386 F.3d at 243 (“A certificate of compliance with federal health care law is a prerequisite to eligibility under the Medicare program.”); Greenfield, 880 F.3d at 95 (a claim for payment made pursuant to an illegal kickback is “false” under the FCA).
“A certificate of compliance with federal health care law is a prerequisite to eligibility under the Medicare program.”
Schmidt v. Zimmer, Inc., 386 F.3d 235, 242 (3d Cir. 2004) (quoting Hutchins v. Wilentz, Goldman & Spitzer, 253 F.3d 176, 182 (3d Cir. 2001)).
quoting Hutchins v. Wilentz, Goldman & Spitzer, 253 F.3d 176, 182 (3d Cir. 2001)
green
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON (2021)
Schmidt v. Zimmer, Inc., 386 F.3d 235, 244 (3d Cir. 2004).
green
U.S. ex rel. Emanuele v. Medicor Associates (2017)
Schmidt v. Zimmer, Inc., 386 F.3d 235, 243 (3d Cir. 2004) (other citations omitted)).
other citations omitted
green
Druding v. Care Alternatives, Inc. (2016)
Schmidt v. Zimmer, Inc., 386 F.3d 235, 242 (3d Cir.2004)).
green
United States ex rel. Petratros v. Genentech, Inc. (2015)
Schmidt v. Zimmer, Inc., 386 F.3d 235, 242 (3d Cir. 2004).
green
United States ex rel. Bergman v. Abbot Laboratories (2014)
Schmidt v. Zimmer, Inc. (“Zimmer I”), 386 F.3d 235, 242 (3d Cir.2004)) (referring to previous codification of the statute as § 3729(a)(1)).
green
United States ex rel. King v. Solvay S.A. (2011)
Schmidt v. Zimmer, Inc., 386 F.3d 235, 243 (3d Cir.2004); United States v. Rogan, 459 F.Supp.2d 692, 717 (N.D.Ill.2006), aff'd 517 F.3d 449 (7th Cir.2008); United States ex rel.
Schmidt v. Zimmer, Inc., 386 F.3d 235, 245 (3d Cir. 2004) (internal citations omitted), This is true, even if the party making a false claim is the defendant’s corporate subsidiary or affiliate. “[I]t is hornbook law that the exercise of the ‘control’ which stock ownership gives to the stockholders . . . will not create liability beyond the assets of the subsidiary.
internal citations omitted
green
United States v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON (2025)
Schmidt v. Zimmer, 386 F.3d 235, 244 (3d Cir. 2004) (explaining “this Court applie[s] ordinary causation principles from negligence law in determining responsibility under the FCA” and, therefore, defendant’s conduct must be “a substantial factor in bringing about” the filing of a false claim).2 At trial, Relators presented substantial evidence that Janssen trained and instructed its sales force to promote Prezista and Intelence OL, and that its sales force observed an incre…
explaining “this Court applie[s] ordinary causation principles from negligence law in determining responsibility under the FCA” and, therefore, defendant’s conduct must be “a substantial factor in bringing about” the filing of a false claim
Schmidt v. Zimmer, Inc., 386 F.3d 235, 245 (3d Cir. 2004) (citing United States ex rel.
citing United States ex rel. Shaver v. Lucas Western Corp., 237 F.3d 932 (8th Cir. 2001)
green
BOLINGER v. 24TH STREET, INC. (2024)
Schmidt v. Zimmer, Inc., 386 F.3d 235, 243 (3d Cir. 2004) (holding that plaintiff alleged violation of the FCA where complaint alleged defendant “certified its compliance with federal health care law knowing that certification to be false”); United States ex rel.
holding that plaintiff alleged violation of the FCA where complaint alleged defendant “certified its compliance with federal health care law knowing that certification to be false”
green
ELLSWORTH ASSOCIATES, LLP v. CVS HEALTH CORPORATION (2023)
Schmidt v. Zimmer, Inc., 386 F.3d 235, 244 (3d Cir. 2004) (finding sub-contractor whose scheme was a substantial factor in the contractor’s submission of a false claim could be found to have caused the submission.) The SAC alleges that both CVS Health and CVS Pharmacy caused false claims to be submitted to the Government.
finding sub-contractor whose scheme was a substantial factor in the contractor’s submission of a false claim could be found to have caused the submission.
green
HODGES v. URGENT CARE HOLDINGS, INC. (2022)
Schmidt v. Zimmer, Inc., 386 F.3d 235, 242 (3d Cir. 2004)).
green
Siegel v. Novo Nordisk Inc (2022)
Schmidt v. Zimmer, Inc., 386 F.3d 235, 244 (3d Cir. 2004)). 68 See U.S. ex rel.
green
DILELLO v. HACKENSACK MERIDIAN HEALTH (2022)
Schmidt v. Zimmer, Inc., 386 F.3d 235, 242 (3d Cir. 2004).
green
MEDINA v. HOWMEDICA OSTEONICS CORP. (2022)
Schmidt v. Zimmer, Inc., 386 F.3d 235, 245 (3d Cir. 2004); see also Petratos II, 855 F.3d at 491 (stating that “but for” causation is not enough to satisfy the causation requirement under the FCA).
Schmidt v. Zimmer, Inc., 386 F.3d 235, 243 (3d Cir. 2004)).
green
United States v. NEARY (2021)
Schmidt v. Zimmer, Inc., 386 F.3d 235, 242 (3d Cir. 2004); Hutchins v. Wilentz, Goldman & Spitzer, 253 F.3d 176, 182 (3d Cir. 2001).
Schmidt v. Zimmer, Inc., 386 F.3d 235, 244 (3d Cir. 2004) (applying “ordinary causation principles from negligence law in determining responsibility under the FCA”); United States v. Mallory, 988 F.3d 730 (4th Cir. 2021) (finding district court’s jury instructions proper, which included: “In order to find a defendant’s conduct caused claims to be submitted, you must determine that the conduct was a substantial factor in the claim being presented to the United States and that…
applying “ordinary causation principles from negligence law in determining responsibility under the FCA”
Schmidt v. Zimmer, Inc., 386 F.3d 235, 243-44 (3d Cir. 2004)).
green
United States v. WAVEFRONT, LLC (2021)
Schmidt v. Zimmer, Inc., 386 F.3d 235, 242 (3d Cir. 2004).4 To establish a claim for conspiracy to commit violations of 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729 (a)(1)(A) or (a)(1)(B), a plaintiff must 4 Some cases cited by the Court refer to claims under 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729 (a)(1)–(2).
Schmidt v. Zimmer, Inc., 386 F.3d 235, 244 (3d Cir. 2004).
green
SIMMONS v. NEW HORIZONS COMMUNITY CHARTER SCHOOL (2020)
Schmidt v. Zimmer, Inc., 386 F.3d 235, 242 (3d Cir. 2004) (quotations omitted).
quotations omitted
green
Overstock.com, Inc. v. State (2020)
Schmidt v. Zimmer, Inc., 386 F.3d 235, 242 (3d Cir. 2004) (relying on Kennard v. Comstock Res., Inc., 363 F.3d 1039, 1048 (10th Cir. 2004)). 36 Gen’l Dynamics C4 Sys., Inc., 637 F.3d at 1056 . 37 See United States ex rel.
relying on Kennard v. Comstock Res., Inc., 363 F.3d 1039, 1048 (10th Cir. 2004)
green
JACKSON v. DEPAUL HEALTH SYSTEM (2020)
Schmidt v. Zimmer, Inc., 386 F.3d 235, 243 (3d 35 Cir. 2004).30 But Jackson has not provided any evidence that compliance with the federal standard of care or state regulations is a condition of payment, nor has she provided any evidence that the government has declined payment for failure to comply with these regulations.31 And Jackson does not point to any other evidence indicating that these regulations are material.
green
STURGEON v. PHARMERICA CORPORATION (2020)
Schmidt v. Zimmer, Inc., 386 F.3d 235, 242 (3d Cir. 2004)), abrogated on other grounds by Universal Health Servs., Inc. v. United States & Massachusetts ex rel.
Schmidt v. Zimmer, Inc., 386 F.3d 235, 242 (3d Cir. 2004) (citations omitted).
citations omitted
green
Schagrin v. LDR Industries, LLC (2018)
Schmidt v. Zimmer, Inc., 386 F.3d 235, 245 (3d Cir. 2004) (“[M]ere awareness that another may, or even has, chosen to make [a false] claim does not alone constitute ‘causing a false claim to be presented.’”).
“[M]ere awareness that another may, or even has, chosen to make [a false] claim does not alone constitute ‘causing a false claim to be presented.’”
Schmidt v. Zimmer, Inc., 386 F.3d 235, 243-44 (3d Cir. 2004).
Schmidt v. Zimmer, Inc., 386 F.3d 235, 242 (3d Cir.2004); see also United States ex rel.
green
Kennedy v. American Airlines Inc. (2016)
Schmidt v. Zimmer, Inc., 386 F.3d 235, 242 (3d Cir.2004).
Schmidt v. Zimmer, Inc., 386 F.3d 235, 242 (3d Cir. 2004) (citing Kennard v. Comstock Res., Inc., 363 F.3d 1039, 1048 (10th Cir.2004)).
citing Kennard v. Comstock Res., Inc., 363 F.3d 1039, 1048 (10th Cir.2004)
green
United States v. Triad Isotopes, Inc. (2015)
Schmidt v. Zimmer, Inc., 386 F.3d 235, 243 (3d Cir.2004) (applying the “knowingly assisted” standard as articulated in Marcus).
green
United States v. Merck & Co. (2014)
Schmidt v. Zimmer, Inc. (“Zimmer I”), 386 F.3d 235, 242 (3d Cir.2004)) (referring to previous codification of the statute as § 3729(a)(1)).
Schmidt v. Zimmer, Inc., 386 F.3d 235, 243 (3d Cir.2004); U.S. ex rel.
Schmidt v. Zimmer, Inc., 386 F.3d 235, 242 (3d Cir.2004) (medical device manufacturer’s illegal marketing scheme caused medical service provider to submit false claims); United States v. Raymond & Whitcomb Co., 53 F.Supp.2d 436, 445 (S.D.N.Y.1999) (travel agency’s illegal use of non-profit bulk mailing rate caused its mailing agent to submit false claims to the U.S. Postal Service).
Schmidt v. Zimmer, Inc., 386 F.3d 235, 243 (3d Cir.2004); U.S. ex rel.
Schmidt v. Zimmer, Inc., 386 F.3d 235, 242 (3d Cir.2004).