Teva representative email to private hospital deemed misleading about status (AUTH/2986/10/17)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case	AUTH/2986/10/17
Parties	Anonymous, non-contactable complainant v Teva
Issue	Conduct of a representative; alleged misrepresentation as another company’s specialist; email about HTA licence support not clear about status
Complaint received	24 October 2017
Case completed	11 January 2018
Applicable Code year	2016
Breach clauses	15.2
No breach clauses	2, 9.1, 15.3, 15.5
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, non-contactable complainant alleged that (July–Oct 2017) a Teva account manager contacted/visited a private hospital and falsely presented him/herself as an authorised adviser/specialist of another company regarding that company’s cell-based autologous product (regulated by MHRA/HTA).
The complainant said the representative had no authority or training to represent the other company and that the last contact was an email in October.
Teva denied any visit and denied the representative presented him/herself as from another company; Teva provided call reporting summaries (1 June–31 Oct 2017).
Teva accepted the representative emailed a management consultant at the private hospital, saying he/she was happy to support an HTA licence application, claiming it was done in a personal capacity as a friend/ex-colleague of a health professional at another hospital.
The Panel considered the email was linked to the representative’s professional expertise and related to healthcare, so it was covered by the Code; the email did not make it sufficiently clear the representative was not acting on behalf of Teva or any other pharmaceutical company.

⚖️

⌄

Breach ruled: Clause 15.2 (representative not sufficiently clear about status; misleading; high ethical standards not maintained).
No breach ruled: Clauses 2, 9.1, 15.3, 15.5.
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