In a rare criminal indictment of a health care executive, a Texas grand jury has charged the chief executive of a large Minnesota med-tech firm with conspiring to sell a varicose-vein treatment device for unapproved uses.
Howard Root, 53, longtime CEO of Maple Grove-based Vascular Solutions, was indicted Thursday by a San Antonio grand jury on one felony count of conspiracy and eight misdemeanor charges of selling unapproved and adulterated medical devices. Prosecutors filed the same charges against the corporation, which has grown into one of Minnesota's biggest device makers.
Prosecutors say the company marketed a device called the Vari-Lase to seal off veins deep in the leg, even though the device was approved only to treat superficial blood vessels near the surface of the skin. The company marketed the device for use on the deeper perforator veins even after a clinical trial recorded numerous adverse results in patients, according to the indictment.
"These charges involve a deceptive sales campaign led by the CEO of a public company," Joyce Branda, acting assistant attorney general for the Justice Department Civil Division, said in a prepared statement. "We will take action to hold corporations and their leaders responsible when they violate laws intended to protect public health."
Root, a lawyer and entrepreneur who co-founded the company in 1997, said he intends to plead not guilty.
"Allegations that we conducted an off-label campaign resulting in almost no sales are absurd and will not stand," Root said in a prepared statement. "We welcome the chance to demonstrate the truth before the court."
The Vari-Lase "short kit," as it is referred to by the company, was supposed to revolutionize vericose-vein treatment and generate major revenue for the company because it eliminated the need to surgically strip out diseased veins. Doctors simply insert a fiber-optic cable through a catheter to deliver laser energy inside a vein, sealing it off.
But the device was voluntarily pulled from the market in July after the company paid $520,000 to settle a civil whistleblower lawsuit alleging the same off-label marketing at issue in the new criminal case.