The US Supreme Court rejected an appeal by Johnson & Johnson’s Ortho-McNeil unit, which sought to stop a whistleblower lawsuit brought by Mark Duxbury, a former sales rep, who claimed the drugmaker gave kickbacks to docs and hospitals to induce them to prescribe the Procrit anemia med.

These alleged kickbacks included free samples; off-invoice discounts; rebates; consulting fees; educational grants; payments to participate in studies, and advisory board fees. He also charged Ortho-Biotech inflated Procrit’s average wholesale price; promoted higher dosing than what was approved by the FDA, which generated larger government reimbursements to health care providers; and ran “sham drug trials” to falsify Medicare reimbursement for off-label use (background here and here).

The lawsuit had been dismissed in early 2008 because a federal judged decided the alleged false claims were publicly disclosed before the suit was filed, raising questions about whether the former reps were the original sources of info used to make the allegations. And so in its appeal, J&J contended Duxbury couldn’t sue because similar allegations had already been disclosed in a previous lawsuit. But in rejecting the appeal, the Supremes the justices took the advice of the Obama administration, which told the court that recent changes in the False Claims Act would limit the practical significance of the case (see this).