Novo Nordisk: alleged defamatory comments about an ex-service provider employee (AUTH/2697/1/14) – No breach | PMCPA Case

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/2697/1/14
Parties	Associate Director of Commissioning and ex-employee (complainant) v Novo Nordisk
Issue	Alleged defamatory comments by three Novo Nordisk employees to NHS diabetes specialist nurses about why the complainant left his role (alleged dismissal, alleged complaints by a consultant/secretary, alleged SOP breach)
Complaint received	21 January 2014
Case completed	1 May 2014
Applicable Code year	2012 (Panel applied 2014 Code as clauses were the same)
Clauses considered	8.2, 9.1, 15.2
Decision	No breach
Appeal	No appeal
Sanctions	None

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 NHS associate director of commissioning (previously employed by a service provider working with Novo Nordisk on market access) complained about the conduct of three Novo Nordisk employees.
He said he resigned after six months due to the offensive behaviour of the three named employees.
He alleged two NHS diabetes specialist nurses told him the three Novo Nordisk employees had said he was dismissed because a diabetes consultant and the consultant’s secretary had made serious complaints about him, and that he had breached an internal SOP regarding payment for a meeting.
The complainant said these statements were false/defamatory and that the consultant and secretary denied making any complaint.
Novo Nordisk said the complainant did not identify the nurses and provided no evidence; two employees provided signed statements denying they made the alleged comments; the third employee was no longer employed by Novo Nordisk.
The Panel considered the matter potentially within scope because it concerned alleged external comments to health professionals about the complainant’s departure and conduct.

⚖️

⌄

No breach of the Code was found.
The Panel ruled the complainant had not met the burden of proof (balance of probabilities) because the nurses were not identified and no evidence was provided that the comments were made.
No breach of Clauses 8.2, 9.1 and 15.2.

🔒

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