4 research outputs found

    Must The Corporation Pay For The Sins Of The Employee After United States ex rel. Vavra v. Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc., 727 F.3d 343 (5th Cir. 2013)?

    Get PDF
    This Note analyses the Fifth Circuit’s decision in United States ex rel Varva v. Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc. to award civil punitive damages against a corporation after an employee violated the Anti-Kickback Act, 41 U.S.C. §§ 51-56 (1986). The statute prohibits individuals from offering bribes to the U.S. government in exchange for preferential treatment under government contracts. Traditionally, corporations were held liable for employee violations in amounts equal to the value of the kickback. Essentially, the corporation was responsible for making the government whole in recoupment of the benefit received by the corporation. Individuals, on the other hand, suffered more stringent penalties for knowingly violating the statute. The statute punished knowing violations with $11,000 per occurrence penalties, plus the value of the kickback. InKellogg, the Fifth Circuit Court held that a corporation can be vicariously liable for knowing violations of the statute and suffer per occurrence penalties. This Note argues that the Fifth Circuit inappropriately determined that vicarious liability could be imputed to a corporation by dismissing the statute’s punitive characteristics and disregarding the application of the act-for-the-benefit-of-the-principal rule of agency. It provides background information on the Anti-Kickback Act and its applicability in government contracts. It also describes the application of vicarious liability and punitive damages under similar statutes

    Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker initiation on organ support-free days in patients hospitalized with COVID-19

    Get PDF
    IMPORTANCE Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Objective To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non–critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022). INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was organ support–free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes. RESULTS On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support–free days among critically ill patients was 10 (–1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (–1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support–free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0273570

    Effect of Antiplatelet Therapy on Survival and Organ Support–Free Days in Critically Ill Patients With COVID-19

    No full text
    International audienc
    corecore