MSD wrongly attributed a transfer of value on Disclosure UK to the wrong health professional (AUTH/3141/12/18)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case	AUTH/3141/12/18
Parties	Health Professional v Merck Sharp & Dohme
Issue	Incorrect transfer of value attributed to the wrong health professional on Disclosure UK
Applicable Code year	2016
Complaint received	21 December 2018
Case completed	15 November 2019
Panel breach findings	Clause 24.1; Clause 7.2
Panel no breach findings	Clause 9.1; Clause 2
Appeal	Appeal by respondent (MSD) against Clause 7.2 breach; unsuccessful
Sanctions	Undertaking received; Additional sanctions: Not stated
Practical root cause	Employee selected the wrong HCP from multiple same-name records; unique ID not cross-checked

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 health professional complained that Disclosure UK showed they had received financial support from Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD), which they said was untrue and had caused reputational damage and potential fraud scrutiny.
MSD acknowledged the entry was wrong: it had sponsored a different physician with the same first and last name (different middle name), and the transfer of value was attributed to the complainant in error.
The error occurred when an MSD employee searched an internal anti-bribery and corruption (ABC) system by first and last name, got 11 results, and selected the wrong individual (complainant appeared first; correct person was listed 11th).
Each individual had a unique local ID number, but the employee did not cross-check it when creating the master workflow and uploading the transfer of value.
MSD said it sent a pre-disclosure notification letter to the complainant’s workplace (Feb 2018) and received no response; ABPI Disclosure Team also notified the complainant before publication; the data went public on 30 June 2018.
After the query was raised (via ABPI Disclosure Team on 21 Dec 2018), MSD removed the complainant from the public list (11 Jan 2019), apologised, and submitted a corrected disclosure file.
MSD appealed the Panel’s breach finding under Clause 7.2, arguing it applied to medicines/promotional claims, not transfer of value disclosures.

⚖️

⌄

Breach of Clause 24.1 (documenting and publicly disclosing transfers of value) was ruled because MSD disclosed a transfer of value against an individual who had not received it.
Breach of Clause 7.2 (misleading information) was ruled because the Disclosure UK information was inaccurate and misleading; this was upheld by the Appeal Board.
No breach of Clause 9.1 (high standards) was ruled, on balance, given MSD had a process that had the potential to identify errors (pre-disclosure notification) and taking all circumstances into account.
No breach of Clause 2 was ruled; the Panel did not consider the circumstances warranted this “particular censure”.
Clause 24.7 was raised but the Panel made no ruling as it was not alleged by the complainant.
MSD’s appeal on Clause 7.2 was unsuccessful.

🔒

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