Meanwhile, back at FTC v. LabMD

For those of you trying to keep up with developments in the case, here’s the latest one:

In response to a motion by the FTC to compel LabMD to file for immunity for Rick Wallace (a former Tiversa employee) under Rule 3.39, Chief Administrative Law Judge Chappell granted in part, and denied in part.

LabMD had previously indicated it would file under Rule 3.39 if the House Oversight Committee failed to grant the witness immunity in their hearings that would also cover his testimony in the administrative case.  But with the House Oversight Committee being in recess until next month, the administrative hearings continue to be stalled, and FTC wanted LabMD to either use administrative procedures to obtain immunity for Rick Wallace or just resume the hearing that has been on hold since this whole issue of immunity and the House Oversight hearing arose back in June.

In its filings, the FTC has said it would not oppose immunity for Wallace if LabMD files for it under Rule 3.39 in the administrative hearing.

Judge Chappell’s order basically says that he will give the House Oversight Committee more time so that they can vote on the immunity issue when they resume business in September, but that if they vote no or if they grant immunity but it does not cover testimony in the FTC’s case, LabMD must file under Rule 3.39 within 5 days.

You can read the order and his analysis of federal statutes on immunity here (pdf).


About the author: Dissent

Comments are closed.