AUTH/1846/6/06: Ex-employee complaint about internal memos and PDM briefing (Merck Sharp & Dohme) – No breach | PMCPA Case

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/1846/6/06
Parties	Former employee v Merck Sharp & Dohme
Materials	Two internal memoranda (2 and 8 May 2006) and a field-force briefing document about PDMs
Products mentioned	Cozaar (losartan); Ezetrol (ezetimibe); Inegy (ezetimibe/simvastatin)
Main issues	Alleged inconsistency/standards in internal memo about audit protocol/proformas; whether PDM role objectives were consistent with the Code
Applicable Code year	2003
Clauses considered	2, 9.1, 15.9, 18.1 and 18.4
Decision	No breach
Complaint received	31 May 2006 (PDF text also states complaint received 1 June 2006)
Case completed	04 July 2006 (PDF text also states completed 5 July 2006)
Appeal	No appeal

Reviewed by Dr Anzal Qurbain (FFPM) — ABPI Final Signatory

🤖

Got a question about this case?

Ask one of our 13 specialist ABPI advisors — instant answers, 24/7.

Ask AskAnzal AI

🎬 Expert Video Walkthrough

🎬

Video walkthrough — coming for members

Subscribe now and get expert video analysis for every case as we publish them.

Subscribe — from £299/yr

📋

⌄

A former employee complained about two internal memoranda (dated 2 and 8 May 2006) circulated to MSD sales teams promoting Cozaar (losartan).
The complaint focused on wording in the 2 May memo stating MSD believed the audit protocol complied with Code guidance (with an exception relating to BHS ABCD guidance).
The complainant argued this contradicted MSD’s earlier position in Case AUTH/1814/3/06 (29 March 2006) where MSD said certain hypertension/type 2 diabetes proformas were not reviewed internally and were believed to breach Clause 18.1.
The complainant alleged the memo failed to maintain high standards when communicating internally about alleged Code breaches.
The complainant also provided a field-force briefing document about “partnership development managers” (PDMs) created by Schering-Plough as part of the Schering-Plough/MSD co-promotion of Ezetrol (ezetimibe) and Inegy (ezetimibe/simvastatin).
The complainant was concerned the PDM role appeared to mix service/education-type activity with commercial responsibilities (eg identifying commercial opportunities, market share growth, working with commissioning locality groups).
PMCPA asked MSD to respond in relation to Clauses 2, 9.1, 15.9, 18.1 and 18.4 of the 2003 Code.

⚖️

⌄

No breach of the Code was ruled.
No breach of Clause 9.1 in relation to the internal memorandum.
No breaches of Clauses 15.9, 18.1 and 18.4 in relation to the PDM briefing document.

🔒

Members get the complete breakdown — Clauses, Sanction, Signatory Lens, Audit checklist, and 3 Key Questions.

Best value

£249/year

Annual — save £99

£29/mo

Monthly

Join Now — Instant Access