In my view not enough emphasis has been placed on the term "fraudulent misrepresentation" in the POH arbitration claim.This is serious stuff and suggests activity way beyond just malpractice and seems to include issues beyond the effectiveness or not of the relevant daptomycin injectable.
The Business Directory has the following definition of fraudulent misrepresentations:
Instance of false statement where (1) the party making the statement is aware that it is false or disregards the possibility of it being false, (2) the party making the statement does so to induce another party to enter into a contract, and (3) the other party enters the contract as a result of the statement and consequently suffers a loss.