← Back to Cases
PMCPA Case

AUTH/3735/2/23: Health professional complaint about Lilly representative visits to dermatology department (No breach)

📅 2023 | 🖉 Dr Anzal Qurbain
đź“Š

Key facts

⌄
Case numberAUTH/3735/2/23
PartiesHealth professional v Eli Lilly and Company Limited
IssueAllegations about conduct of a Lilly representative visiting a dermatology department (prior authorisation, frequency/attendance, alleged presence during clinical sessions, alleged letters/cards/samples)
Applicable Code2021
Complaint received10 February 2023
Case completed8 May 2024
AppealNo appeal
Clauses considered2; 5.1; 17.2; 17.4 (x2); 21.2; 21.3
DecisionNo breach of the Code
Additional sanctionsNot stated

Download the full case report (PDF)

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
đź“‹

What happened

⌄
  • A health professional complained about the activities of a named Eli Lilly sales representative visiting a busy dermatology department.
  • The complainant alleged the representative had been told on numerous occasions not to attend without prior authorisation, despite a visible departmental sign stating no representatives should attend without prior agreement.
  • It was alleged the representative repeatedly attended, came in during clinical sessions (light therapy, day treatment, outpatient clinic), and used personal hospital appointments to coincide with contact time.
  • The complainant said they instructed the representative not to attend under any circumstances without prior consent from the clinical lead and not to drop off any letters, cards or samples.
  • Lilly said the representative had visited since October 2021 and, before visits, would check verbally or by email whether staff were available; the representative knew about the sign but said it did not specify who must give prior agreement and that physicians/nurses had consistently facilitated visits.
  • Lilly said the first time the representative was told that a specific named doctor’s email pre-approval was required was 10 February 2023; after that, the representative obtained email pre-approval for subsequent visits.
  • Lilly said the representative denied entering clinical sessions, denied using personal appointments to coincide with visits, and denied dropping off letters/cards/samples; Lilly stated it did not provide samples in the UK.
  • The Panel noted CRM records showed 13 “interactions” with 9 staff in the first ~6 weeks of 2023 (including phone interactions), but the records did not clearly distinguish “calls” vs “contacts” or solicited vs unsolicited interactions.
⚖️

Outcome

⌄
  • No breach of Clause 17.2.
  • No breach of Clause 17.4 (including the allegation about repeated attendance/frequency of visits).
  • No breach of Clauses 21.2 and 21.3 (samples allegation not evidenced; Lilly stated it did not provide samples in the UK).
  • No breach of Clause 5.1 (letters/cards allegation not clearly made/evidenced).
  • No breach of Clause 2 (following the above no-breach findings).
🔒

Unlock the full case analysis

Members get the complete breakdown — Clauses, Sanction, Signatory Lens, Audit checklist, and 3 Key Questions.

Best value
ÂŁ249/year
Annual — save £99
or
ÂŁ29/mo
Monthly
Join Now — Instant Access
← All Cases Book a Free Compliance Call

⭐ Charter Member — Until 31 March

See the full compliance picture for every pharma company

291 Company Intelligence Reports — breach patterns, appeal history, industry ranking, PDF export. £1,999/year £2,499

Get Charter Access →

📰 Weekly PMCPA Case Breakdown

One real case. One key lesson. Every week — free.

Subscribe Free