Anonymous v Sanofi-Aventis (AUTH/2344/8/10): Rep asked consultant to countersign shotgun licence during hospital discussion

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/2344/8/10
Parties	Anonymous v Sanofi-Aventis
Issue	Conduct of representative; request for HCP to countersign shotgun licence renewal form during/around product discussion in a hospital reception area
Complaint received	10 August 2010
Case completed	23 September 2010
Applicable Code year	2008
Products mentioned	Clexane (enoxaparin); Multaq (mentioned in call record)
Breach clauses	Clause 15.2
No breach clauses	Clause 9.1
Sanctions	Undertaking received; Additional sanctions: Not stated
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

📋

⌄

An anonymous complainant alleged a Sanofi-Aventis representative had an inappropriate discussion with a consultant in a cardiology reception area.
The complainant said the representative discussed Clexane (enoxaparin), requested further calls about prescribing policy changes, and asked the consultant to sign a character witness statement/countersignature for a shotgun licence renewal.
Sanofi-Aventis said the representative had a pre-arranged lunchtime appointment with a doctor solely to request countersignature of Section D of a shotgun licence renewal form; the intended doctor was not present.
A second doctor (known to the representative through a long-standing professional relationship) arrived, spoke with the representative, and ultimately signed the form and photograph.
After signing, the doctor asked about two Sanofi-Aventis products; the representative answered on one and arranged a colleague to follow up on the other.
The representative recorded the interaction as a promotional call (“spec call, share exp with Rx Multaq”) with access method “Rep Request”.
The Panel considered the interaction in the reception area created a problematic impression and that personal/private requests should be clearly separated from business/promotional activity.

⚖️

⌄

Breach of Clause 15.2 was ruled.
No breach of Clause 9.1 was ruled (the Panel considered the issue was covered by the Clause 15.2 ruling).
No appeal.

🔒

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