Anonymous doctor v Daiichi-Sankyo: speaker expenses and family hospitality (AUTH/3053/7/18)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/3053/7/18
Parties	Anonymous doctor v Daiichi-Sankyo
Issue	Speaker travel arrangements and expense reimbursement where family accompanied the speaker
Meeting timing	June 2018
Complaint received	17 July 2018
Case completed	22 May 2019
Published	May 2020 Code of Practice Review
Applicable Code year	2016
Medicine mentioned	Lixiana (edoxaban)
Breach clauses	9.1, 22.1
No breach clauses	2, 23.1
Appeal	Appeal by the complainant (Clause 2); unsuccessful
Sanctions	Undertaking received; additional sanctions not stated

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

📋

⌄

An anonymous, contactable doctor complained about travel arrangements for a US-based health professional speaking at a June 2018 meeting organised by a Daiichi-Sankyo representative.
The speaker (an author of an edoxaban study) was contracted by Daiichi-Sankyo Europe GmbH (Germany) to speak at multiple meetings in Ireland and the UK; Daiichi-Sankyo UK was involved in planning and reviewed the speaker’s expense claim.
The complainant believed the speaker was travelling with family and that ABPI rules did not allow family members to travel with paid speakers.
A minivan was booked (by an agency on behalf of Daiichi-Sankyo Europe) for airport-to-hotel transfer because the speaker travelled with four family members; the company said the minivan cost would be deducted from the speaker’s expenses.
Restaurant receipts submitted for reimbursement showed meals for more than one person; Daiichi-Sankyo deducted two items but missed a third, reimbursing all drinks on a receipt that indicated more than one diner (including two cokes and two teas).
The expense claim was reviewed and reimbursement made after the complaint had been received.

⚖️

⌄

Breach of Clause 22.1: on the balance of probabilities, Daiichi-Sankyo reimbursed hospitality for the speaker’s family (drinks on a multi-person receipt).
Breach of Clause 9.1: high standards were not maintained, particularly as reimbursement occurred after the complaint was received.
No breach of Clause 23.1: the minivan cost was deducted from the speaker’s expense claim, so the company did not ultimately pay for that transport.
No breach of Clause 2: the Panel and Appeal Board did not consider the circumstances warranted the “particular censure” of Clause 2.
Appeal: the complainant appealed the no-breach ruling under Clause 2; the Appeal Board upheld no breach of Clause 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