Legal Opinion

United States Ex Rel. Paranich v. Sorgnard

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania

Decided October 8, 2003No. CIV.A.3:CV-98-2070PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM

CONNER, District Judge.

Presently before the court is defendant Irwin Leasing Corporation’s (“Irwin”) motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 125). This is a qui tam 1 action under the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729 et seq. (“the Act”). Qui tam plaintiff, 2 Steven Paranich (“Paranich”), contends that Irwin induced him to file false Medicare reimbursement claims for treatments using a medical device called the Matrix. Irwin denies any liability for plaintiffs Medicare claims, and asserts that, even if it is liable, Paranich is not a proper relator under the Act. Irwin also asserts via…

2Cases cited22 opinions

  1. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
  2. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  3. Mortensen v. First Federal Savings & Loan Ass'nCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1977
  4. David Holt, as Personal Representative of the Estates of James W. Holt and Joan Holt, Deceased v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1995
  5. Marie Saldana v. Kmart Corporation Marie Saldana, in No. 99-4055Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2001

17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. United States Ex Rel. Stephen Paranich, D.C. v. SorgnardCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2005
  2. Rupert Ex Rel. Estate of Knepp v. United StatesDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 2004
  3. United States v. SorgnardCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2005

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API