ProStrakan: alleged misleading approach to book an appointment (AUTH/2531/9/12) – no breach | PMCPA Case

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/2531/9/12
Complainant	Consultant in palliative medicine
Company	ProStrakan UK Ltd
Issue	Alleged misleading statement to secretary when seeking an appointment (implying collaboration on a symptom control guideline)
Product mentioned	Abstral (fentanyl citrate)
Clauses considered	9.1, 15.2, 15.5
Decision	No breach of the Code
Complaint received	19 September 2012
Case completed	6 November 2012
Appeal	No appeal
Applicable Code year	2012

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 consultant in palliative medicine complained about a ProStrakan representative’s conduct when attempting to book an appointment via the consultant’s secretary.
The allegation was that the representative inaccurately told the secretary that he and the consultant were “working together on a symptom control guideline”.
ProStrakan investigated immediately and interviewed the representative and his manager (who said he was present during the conversation).
ProStrakan’s account: the representative mentioned guidelines only to explain he wished to provide up-to-date product information on Abstral (fentanyl citrate), and did not claim collaboration on guideline production; he identified himself and the company and showed a business card.
The complainant was not party to the conversation; the secretary and receptionist stood by their recollection; no recording or emails existed.

⚖️

⌄

No breach of the Code was ruled.
The Panel found it was impossible to determine precisely what happened given conflicting accounts and lack of supporting evidence.
The Panel noted the complainant bears the burden of proof on the balance of probabilities and this was not met.
No breach was ruled for Clauses 9.1, 15.2 and 15.5.

🔒

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