Monday, February 08, 2010

Haight v. Catholic Healthcare West

A very disappointing ruling by the Ninth Circuit late last week in a qui tam action under the False Claims Act against a researcher who received federal funding for some rather dubious brain cancer research on beagles.

Not only was the outcome disappointing, what was (at least to me) the most disappointing was the fact that the opinion's author flatly called the decision "inequitable" yet - despite sitting on a court that is supposed to have discretion and do things like address injustice in our society - felt obliged to rule inequitably rather than at least concur, never mind dissent or actually do the right thing and persuade at least one other fellow panel member to find grounds to rule likewise. Everyone knows that judges, just like juries, decide how to rule and will construct a way to get there.

Here's a link to the opinion and a short article appearing in the Metropolitan News-Enterprise.

No comments: