UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                                                      FOR THE

                                                             FOURTH CIRCUIT

 

United States of America ex rel. Lokesh B. Vuyyuru, M.D., 

Plaintiffs/Appellants

 

v.

 

Gopinath Jadhav, M.D. et al

                                                              Defendants/Appellees

 

                                                                             

                                                             Record No.:  07-1455           

 

                                               APPELLANTS’ DESIGNATION OF

                                                      CONTENTS OF APPENDIX

 

            COME NOW the appellants and make the following designations as to the contents of the Appellants’ Appendix in this appeal:

A.        Questions Presented:

 

1.                  Whether the court erred by considering more than a facial challenge to federal subject matter jurisdiction without affording the relator the opportunity to conduct discovery to obtain the actual bills which existed based upon reasonable deductions and inferences from the apparent circumstances.

2.                  Whether the court erred by failing to apply the standard for both 12(b)(1) or Rule 56 summary judgment motions which require the court to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, together with all reasonable inferences and deductions.

3.                  Whether the court erred by summarily finding Dr. Vuyyuru not to be an "original source", "an individual who has direct and independent knowledge of the information on which the allegations are based and has voluntarily provided the information to the Government before filing an action under this section which is based on the information" pursuant to § 3730(e)(4)(B).

4.                  Whether the court erred by summarily finding that Dr. Vuyyuru did not qualify under the original-source exception to the public-disclosure bar in a qui tam action.

5.                  Whether the court erred finding that by making conclusions based upon logical flaws finding “remarkable similarities between the news article and the allegations contained in these paragraphs are significant proof that the latter are “actually derived” from the former”,  when the “remarkable similarities” is just as likely to prove that the former are actually derived from the latter.  When coupled with the other evidence,  including but not limited to Dr. Vuyyuru being the publisher of the newspaper, Dr. Vuyyuru having complained to the government authorities since 1998/99, such a finding is at best pure speculation and no proof at all, let alone “significant proof” and further is contrary to the evidence.  Alone the remarkable similarities is evidence of a relationship, but certainly not of which was derived from the other.

6.                  Whether the court erred by failing to follow the rule in Rockwell Int'l Corp. v. United States, 127 S. Ct. 1397 (U.S. 2007), where the Supreme Court stated to “bar a relator with direct and independent knowledge of information underlying his allegations just because no one can know what information underlies the similar allegations of some other person [in this case Dorothy Rowley and The Virginia Times] simply makes no sense.” 

7.                  Whether the court erred and its decisions run contrary to the intent of Congress to encourage more private enforcement suits since the government lacks the resources to adequately address the growing problem of fraud upon the Government. 1986 U.S. Code Cong. & Admin. News 5288-89.

 

B.        Designations as to the Contents of the Appellant’s Appendix

1.         District Court Docket Sheet

2.         Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint (8/29/06)

3.         Declaration of Lokesh Vuyyuru (3/13/06)

4.         Plaintiff’s Brief in Opposition to Defendant’s Consolidated Motion to Dismiss (10/24/06)

5.         Vuyyuru Declaration re: Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (10/24/06)

6.         Supplemental Declaration of Lokesh Vuyyuru M.D. (1/26/07)

7.         Transcript (1/26/07)

8.         Memorandum Opinion by Judge Payne (3/28/07)

9.         Final Order (3/28/07)

10.       Brief in Opposition to The Cameron Foundation’s Motion for Attorneys Fees with Exhibits (4/25/07)

11.       Notice of Appeal (4/27/07)

                                                            United States of America ex rel.

    Lokesh B. Vuyyuru, M.D., 

.

 

 

                                                                        By:_____________________________

                                                                                    Counsel

 

 

 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 

I certify that on this 4th day of June 2007, I caused a true and accurate copy of the foregoing to be served on the following opposing counsel/party and the United States Attorney General as indicated below:

 

            [] via facsimile [X] via U.S. Mail [] via hand

 

Martin A. Donlan, Jr., Esquire

W. Benjamin Pace, Esq.

Williams Mullen

Two James Center 1021 East Cary Street (23219)

 P.O. Box 1320

Richmond, Virginia 23218-1320

804-783-6932

804-783-6507 f

(Counsel for Gopinath Jadhav, M.D. and Southside Gastroenterology Associates, Ltd.)

 

Michael R. Shebelskie, Esq.

Rita Davis, Esq.

Hunton & Williams, LLP

Riverfront Plaza, East Tower

951 East Bryd Street

Richmond, Virginia 23219-4074

(804) 788-8200

(804) 788-8218 f

(Counsel for Petersburg Hospital Company, LLC & The Cameron Foundation)

 

J. William Boland, Esq.

Charles Wm. McIntrye, Jr.,Esq.

Nathan A. Kottkamp, Esq.

McGuire Woods, LLP

901 East Cary Street

Richmond, VA 23219

(804) 775-1000

(804) 775-1061 f

(Counsel for Columbia/HCA John Randolph, Inc.)

 

And

 

Debra J. Prillaman, Esq.

Chuck Rosenberg, Esq.

United States Attorney’s Office

Eastern District of Virginia

1800 Main Street Centre

600 East Main Street, Suite 1800

Richmond, Virginia 23219

(804) 819-5400

(804) 771-2316 f