{"id":6181,"date":"2020-05-14T16:31:00","date_gmt":"2020-05-14T16:31:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/?post_type=publications&#038;p=6181"},"modified":"2025-11-21T21:19:33","modified_gmt":"2025-11-21T21:19:33","slug":"1st-circuit-revives-13-year-old-qui-tam-suit-against-nursing-home-pharmacy-chain-finds-relator-was-original-source","status":"publish","type":"publications","link":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/publications\/1st-circuit-revives-13-year-old-qui-tam-suit-against-nursing-home-pharmacy-chain-finds-relator-was-original-source\/","title":{"rendered":"1st Circuit Revives 13-Year-Old Qui Tam Suit Against Nursing-Home Pharmacy Chain, Finds Relator Was \u2018Original Source\u2019"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<figure class=\"wp-block-image size-full\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" width=\"910\" height=\"350\" src=\"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/05\/pill-source-web-hero_b68f0f.png\" alt=\"\" class=\"wp-image-6184\" srcset=\"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/05\/pill-source-web-hero_b68f0f.png 910w, https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/05\/pill-source-web-hero_b68f0f.png?resize=300,115 300w, https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/05\/pill-source-web-hero_b68f0f.png?resize=768,295 768w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 910px) 100vw, 910px\" \/><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p>Thirteen years after the filing of the initial complaint, the First Circuit recently revived a False Claims Act (FCA) suit, reversing the district court and holding a relator can be an \u201coriginal source\u201d without participating in or having contemporaneous knowledge about the alleged fraud. <em>See United States ex rel. Banigan v. PharMerica, Inc.<\/em>, 950 F.3d 134 (1st Cir. 2020). The First Circuit\u2019s reasoning conflicts with the approach taken by several other circuits, which require participation in or close observation of the alleged scheme in order to qualify as an \u201coriginal source.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Relevant Background<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>Through its <em>qui tam <\/em>provision, the FCA provides financial incentives to individuals to bring civil actions for fraud on the federal government in the capacity of relators (<em>i.e.<\/em>, whistleblowers), by entitling them to a share in any eventual recoveries. <em>See <\/em>31 U.S.C. \u00a7&nbsp;3730(b) &amp; (d). The statute attempts to strike a balance between incentivizing <em>qui tam <\/em>lawsuits and deterring parasitic lawsuits based on allegations already made by another relator or already in the public domain. One provision of the FCA, known as the \u201cpublic disclosure bar,\u201d prohibits relators from proceeding with a lawsuit based on information that has been publicly disclosed in specified ways, unless (1) the government objects, or (2) the relator is an \u201coriginal source.\u201d <em>See<\/em> 31 U.S.C. \u00a7&nbsp;3730(e)(4). In relevant part, an \u201coriginal source\u201d is someone who has independent knowledge of the information on which the allegations are based.<sup><a href=\"#_ftn1\" id=\"_ftnref1\">1<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>In <em>Banigan<\/em>,the relator alleged that his employer, a drug manufacturer, offered kickbacks disguised as discounts, rebates, and other incentives to induce long-term care pharmacy companies to prescribe the manufacturer\u2019s medications to nursing home residents. The relator did not participate directly in the alleged scheme and instead learned most of the facts alleged in the complaint from co-workers and documents after the scheme concluded.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The defendant moved to dismiss, arguing that the public disclosure bar applied because the relator\u2019s complaint was substantially similar to the allegations in another case. The court agreed, and it also found that the relator was not an \u201coriginal source\u201d because, among other reasons, he learned of the fraud from others and only saw corroborating documents after the scheme had ended. <em>United States ex rel. Banigan v. PharMerica, Inc.<\/em>, Civ. A. No. 07-12153-RWZ, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72800, at *13 (D. Mass. Apr. 30, 2018).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>First Circuit\u2019s Opinion<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>On appeal, the First Circuit agreed that the public disclosure bar applied because the allegations were \u201csubstantially similar\u201d to those in a prior lawsuit even though the relator provided \u201cgreater detail\u201d about the fraud. <em>Banigan<\/em>, 950 F.3d at 142\u201344. However, it reversed on the issue of the original-source exception, finding that the relator qualified even without direct participation in the alleged fraud.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>In its analysis of the original source exception, the court focused on the \u201cdirect&nbsp;.&nbsp;.&nbsp;. knowledge\u201d requirement in the statutory text. The court used the same \u201cabsence of an intervening agency\u201d definition of \u201cdirect\u201d as had the district court, <em>id. <\/em>at *144\u201345, but it reached the opposite conclusion. The defendant argued that the relator lacked \u201cdirect\u201d knowledge because (1) he learned of the scheme from those who designed it, (2) he neither designed, participated in, or observed the scheme, and (3) his investigation came only after the scheme had ended. <em>Id. <\/em>at *145. The court rejected this reasoning, finding that it would \u201crequire a relator to have either participated in the fraud or observed it in operation to qualify as an original source,\u201d <em>id. <\/em>at *21, a requirement that would undermine the FCA\u2019s \u201ccore purpose\u201d of fostering disclosures of fraud, <em>id. <\/em>at 145\u201346. Despite conceding that the relator\u2019s knowledge of the scheme came from others, the court held he was an original source because he had \u201cobtained the remaining information underlying [his complaint] through his own investigation.\u201d <em>Id. <\/em>at *145. The court therefore \u201creadily conclude[d] that Banigan\u2019s knowledge satisfie[d] [its] definition of \u2018direct\u2019 as \u2018immediate,\u2019\u201d finding that Congress could not have \u201cintended to reward as original sources only those who participated in the fraud.\u201d <em>Id. <\/em>at *146.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>While <em>Banigan<\/em> has been cheered by the FCA <em>qui tam <\/em>bar, placing the decision in its proper context will help defendants minimize its impact. The opinion acknowledged a potential circuit split on the interpretation of \u201cdirect&nbsp;.&nbsp;.&nbsp;. knowledge,\u201d with at least three circuits reading the criterion as requiring a relator\u2019s participation in, or contemporaneous witnessing of, a fraud.<sup><a href=\"#_ftn2\" id=\"_ftnref2\">2<\/a><\/sup>&nbsp;It does not seem likely the Supreme Court will take up the question, however, as the issue of \u201cdirect&nbsp;.&nbsp;.&nbsp;. knowledge\u201d is highly fact-specific, and Congress removed that language from the statute in 2010. Moreover, the 2010 amendments to the FCA also gave the Department of Justice the power to veto the application of the public disclosure bar simply by opposing the defendant\u2019s motion. <em>See <\/em>31 U.S.C. \u00a7&nbsp;3930(e)(4)(A). That power further minimizes the impact of the public disclosure bar under the current version of the statute.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<p><sup><a href=\"#_ftnref1\" id=\"_ftn1\">1<\/a><\/sup>&nbsp;The court applied the definition of \u201coriginal source\u201d that was in the FCA when the relator filed his complaint. <em>See Banigan<\/em>, 950 F.3d at 144; <em>see also <\/em>31 U.S.C. \u00a7&nbsp;3730(e)(4)(B) (2007) (requiring \u201cdirect and independent knowledge\u201d). In 2010, Congress amended the FCA to remove the word \u201cdirect.\u201d <em>See<\/em> 31 U.S.C. \u00a7&nbsp;3730(e)(4)(B) (requiring \u201cknowledge that is independent of and materially adds to the publicly disclosed allegations or transactions\u201d).<br>&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><sup><a href=\"#_ftnref2\" id=\"_ftn2\">2<\/a><\/sup>&nbsp;The court cited, for that contrary reading of the statute, decisions of the Third, Eighth, and Eleventh Circuits: <em>United States ex rel. Schumann v. AstraZeneca Pharms. L.P.<\/em>, 769 F.3d 837, 847 (3d Cir. 2014), <em>United States ex rel. Newell v. City of St. Paul, Minn.<\/em>, 728 F.3d 791, 797 (8th Cir. 2013); <em>United States ex rel. Saldivar v. Fresenius Med. Care Holdings, Inc.<\/em>, 841 F.3d 927, 935-36 (11th Cir. 2016). <em>See Banigan<\/em>, 950 F.3d at 145 &amp; 145 n.15.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Thirteen years after the filing of the initial complaint, the First Circuit recently revived a False Claims Act (FCA) suit, reversing the district court and holding a relator can be an \u201coriginal source\u201d without participating in or having contemporaneous knowledge about the alleged fraud. See United States ex rel. Banigan v. PharMerica, Inc., 950 F.3d\u2026<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8,"featured_media":0,"menu_order":0,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"tags":[],"publication-type":[7],"class_list":["post-6181","publications","type-publications","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","publication-type-analysis"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO Premium plugin v26.5 (Yoast SEO v26.9) - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-premium-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>1st Circuit Revives 13-Year-Old Qui Tam Suit Against Nursing-Home Pharmacy Chain, Finds Relator Was \u2018Original Source\u2019 - Dinsmore &amp; Shohl<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"1st Circuit Revives 13-Year-Old Qui Tam Suit Against Nursing-Home Pharmacy Chain, Finds Relator Was \u2018Original Source\u2019 Read insights and legal analysis from attorneys at Dinsmore &amp; Shohl LLP.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/publications\/1st-circuit-revives-13-year-old-qui-tam-suit-against-nursing-home-pharmacy-chain-finds-relator-was-original-source\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"1st Circuit Revives 13-Year-Old Qui Tam Suit Against Nursing-Home Pharmacy Chain, Finds Relator Was \u2018Original Source\u2019\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"1st Circuit Revives 13-Year-Old Qui Tam Suit Against Nursing-Home Pharmacy Chain, Finds Relator Was \u2018Original Source\u2019 Read insights and legal analysis from attorneys at Dinsmore &amp; Shohl LLP.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/publications\/1st-circuit-revives-13-year-old-qui-tam-suit-against-nursing-home-pharmacy-chain-finds-relator-was-original-source\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Dinsmore &amp; Shohl\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2025-11-21T21:19:33+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/05\/pill-source-web-hero_b68f0f.png\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"5 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/publications\/1st-circuit-revives-13-year-old-qui-tam-suit-against-nursing-home-pharmacy-chain-finds-relator-was-original-source\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/publications\/1st-circuit-revives-13-year-old-qui-tam-suit-against-nursing-home-pharmacy-chain-finds-relator-was-original-source\/\",\"name\":\"1st Circuit Revives 13-Year-Old Qui Tam Suit Against Nursing-Home Pharmacy Chain, Finds Relator Was \u2018Original Source\u2019 - Dinsmore &amp; Shohl\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/publications\/1st-circuit-revives-13-year-old-qui-tam-suit-against-nursing-home-pharmacy-chain-finds-relator-was-original-source\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/publications\/1st-circuit-revives-13-year-old-qui-tam-suit-against-nursing-home-pharmacy-chain-finds-relator-was-original-source\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/05\/pill-source-web-hero_b68f0f.png\",\"datePublished\":\"2020-05-14T16:31:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2025-11-21T21:19:33+00:00\",\"description\":\"1st Circuit Revives 13-Year-Old Qui Tam Suit Against Nursing-Home Pharmacy Chain, Finds Relator Was \u2018Original Source\u2019 Read insights and legal analysis from attorneys at Dinsmore & Shohl LLP.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/publications\/1st-circuit-revives-13-year-old-qui-tam-suit-against-nursing-home-pharmacy-chain-finds-relator-was-original-source\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/publications\/1st-circuit-revives-13-year-old-qui-tam-suit-against-nursing-home-pharmacy-chain-finds-relator-was-original-source\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/publications\/1st-circuit-revives-13-year-old-qui-tam-suit-against-nursing-home-pharmacy-chain-finds-relator-was-original-source\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/05\/pill-source-web-hero_b68f0f.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/05\/pill-source-web-hero_b68f0f.png\",\"width\":910,\"height\":350},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/publications\/1st-circuit-revives-13-year-old-qui-tam-suit-against-nursing-home-pharmacy-chain-finds-relator-was-original-source\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"1st Circuit Revives 13-Year-Old Qui Tam Suit Against Nursing-Home Pharmacy Chain, Finds Relator Was \u2018Original Source\u2019\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/\",\"name\":\"Dinsmore & Shohl\",\"description\":\"\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Dinsmore & Shohl\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/Dinsmore-Final-Logo-Navy.svg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/Dinsmore-Final-Logo-Navy.svg\",\"width\":413,\"height\":54,\"caption\":\"Dinsmore & Shohl\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"}}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"1st Circuit Revives 13-Year-Old Qui Tam Suit Against Nursing-Home Pharmacy Chain, Finds Relator Was \u2018Original Source\u2019 - Dinsmore &amp; Shohl","description":"1st Circuit Revives 13-Year-Old Qui Tam Suit Against Nursing-Home Pharmacy Chain, Finds Relator Was \u2018Original Source\u2019 Read insights and legal analysis from attorneys at Dinsmore & Shohl LLP.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/publications\/1st-circuit-revives-13-year-old-qui-tam-suit-against-nursing-home-pharmacy-chain-finds-relator-was-original-source\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"1st Circuit Revives 13-Year-Old Qui Tam Suit Against Nursing-Home Pharmacy Chain, Finds Relator Was \u2018Original Source\u2019","og_description":"1st Circuit Revives 13-Year-Old Qui Tam Suit Against Nursing-Home Pharmacy Chain, Finds Relator Was \u2018Original Source\u2019 Read insights and legal analysis from attorneys at Dinsmore & Shohl LLP.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/publications\/1st-circuit-revives-13-year-old-qui-tam-suit-against-nursing-home-pharmacy-chain-finds-relator-was-original-source\/","og_site_name":"Dinsmore &amp; Shohl","article_modified_time":"2025-11-21T21:19:33+00:00","og_image":[{"url":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/05\/pill-source-web-hero_b68f0f.png","type":"","width":"","height":""}],"twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Est. reading time":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/publications\/1st-circuit-revives-13-year-old-qui-tam-suit-against-nursing-home-pharmacy-chain-finds-relator-was-original-source\/","url":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/publications\/1st-circuit-revives-13-year-old-qui-tam-suit-against-nursing-home-pharmacy-chain-finds-relator-was-original-source\/","name":"1st Circuit Revives 13-Year-Old Qui Tam Suit Against Nursing-Home Pharmacy Chain, Finds Relator Was \u2018Original Source\u2019 - Dinsmore &amp; Shohl","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/publications\/1st-circuit-revives-13-year-old-qui-tam-suit-against-nursing-home-pharmacy-chain-finds-relator-was-original-source\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/publications\/1st-circuit-revives-13-year-old-qui-tam-suit-against-nursing-home-pharmacy-chain-finds-relator-was-original-source\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/05\/pill-source-web-hero_b68f0f.png","datePublished":"2020-05-14T16:31:00+00:00","dateModified":"2025-11-21T21:19:33+00:00","description":"1st Circuit Revives 13-Year-Old Qui Tam Suit Against Nursing-Home Pharmacy Chain, Finds Relator Was \u2018Original Source\u2019 Read insights and legal analysis from attorneys at Dinsmore & Shohl LLP.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/publications\/1st-circuit-revives-13-year-old-qui-tam-suit-against-nursing-home-pharmacy-chain-finds-relator-was-original-source\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/publications\/1st-circuit-revives-13-year-old-qui-tam-suit-against-nursing-home-pharmacy-chain-finds-relator-was-original-source\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/publications\/1st-circuit-revives-13-year-old-qui-tam-suit-against-nursing-home-pharmacy-chain-finds-relator-was-original-source\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/05\/pill-source-web-hero_b68f0f.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/05\/pill-source-web-hero_b68f0f.png","width":910,"height":350},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/publications\/1st-circuit-revives-13-year-old-qui-tam-suit-against-nursing-home-pharmacy-chain-finds-relator-was-original-source\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"1st Circuit Revives 13-Year-Old Qui Tam Suit Against Nursing-Home Pharmacy Chain, Finds Relator Was \u2018Original Source\u2019"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/","name":"Dinsmore & Shohl","description":"","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/#organization","name":"Dinsmore & Shohl","url":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/Dinsmore-Final-Logo-Navy.svg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/Dinsmore-Final-Logo-Navy.svg","width":413,"height":54,"caption":"Dinsmore & Shohl"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"}}]}},"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/publications\/6181","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/publications"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/publications"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/8"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/publications\/6181\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":61569,"href":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/publications\/6181\/revisions\/61569"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6181"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6181"},{"taxonomy":"publication-type","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/publication-type?post=6181"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}