Corporate officials are 'responsible'

Share this article:
In an adverse finding on an appeal by Purdue Pharma executives over OxyContin marketing, an HHS Departmental Appeals Board says that corporate officials can be held responsible for their organization's legal problems, even if they weren't personally aware they were occurring.

The senior executives had pleaded guilty to one misdemeanor count of introducing misbranded OxyContin into interstate commerce.

Washington food and drug attorney Arnold Friede commented in an online posting that there was no evidence that the executives personally participated in or had knowledge of the specifics of the underlying misbranding. They were convicted and sentenced to three years probation, 400 hours of community service and a fine of $5,000. They were ordered to disgorge bonuses they had received. Separately, the HHS Inspector General suspended the three from participating in federal health programs for 20 years.

They challenged the legality of the exclusions and their duration before an HHS administrative law judge, who upheld the order but cut the time to 15 years. They appealed that decision to the Departmental Appeals Board, arguing that the criminal convictions were based solely and exclusively on their positions on the Purdue organization chart and there was no evidence that they participated in, knew about or were in any other way at fault for the misbranding.
Share this article:

Next Article in Features

Email Newsletters

More in Features

Headliner: Proteus CEO takes an original path

Headliner: Proteus CEO takes an original path

Andrew Thompson, CEO, Proteus Digital Health

Leadership Exchange: How Do We Get Beyond the Pill?

Leadership Exchange: How Do We Get Beyond the ...

As its focus moves from manufacturing to service, pharma needs to partner with healthcare neophytes as well as established players. James Chase asks six experts to assess the risks and ...

FDA and off-label uses: a balancing act

FDA and off-label uses: a balancing act

FDA's current re-examination of its off-label promotion policies in light of the First Amendment is a delicate balancing act between its rock-solid traditional enforcement posture and a diverse new electronic ...