AstraZeneca sales rep is named as a co-defendant in a product liability lawsuit

[Anonymous]

story says its unusual to go after reps...

http://www.pharmalot.com/2011/09/astrazeneca-rep-is-sued-by-nexium-patients/

 

[Anonymous]

as if we didn't need an other reason to get out of this shithole job. Hmmm. do you think AZ corporate will stand up for these reps or try to put the spin on this and say they were renegades and hang them out to dry? Hmmm.

 

[Anonymous]

Good grief. You are hung out to dry if you do not increase market share, and hung out to dry if you do not go over every possible adverse event in detail. Last time I did this my DSM felt I went over the AE\'s in too much detail. Okay, which is it?

 

[Anonymous]

It's occupational rape. They use us every day like a condom so what's so different here? The rep will testify that they received and understood all the proper CIA training and the company will testify that they administered all the necessary CIA training and then leave this poor fucker to the wolves. The rep is an extremely inexpensive solution to a potentially expensive (and systemic) problem.

Go take a pharmawhore's bath and try to enjoy your weekend.

 

[Anonymous]

Sometimes the lawyers will use the rep to draw the company into the lawsuit. Or maybe the representative did something wrong.

 

[Anonymous]

Sometimes the lawyers will use the rep to draw the company into the lawsuit. Or maybe the representative did something wrong.

read the case......the defendant is a DSM.

 

[Anonymous]

Look this is bullshit! We all know the company lies it's ass off about every issue from the last rep they ran out under false pretenses to the lies about Seroquel diabetes to you name it, but hey -- we're not responsible for any of this shit! We just go to work and get a paycheck -- who the fuck do these people think we are, responsible adults??!

We aren't held to the same standards as those people we hold to standards, we just get paid and go home. The only people we answer to are our DSMs. That's what HR told us, and everybody knows, HR is a higher authority than any US government agency.

 

[Anonymous]

read the case......the defendant is a DSM.

Guess again...

"...but they are also singling out a district sales manager and “executive” sales rep for improperly promoting the med to consumers and healthcare providers."

It is both.

 

[Anonymous]

Well AZ will stand behind me. The first thing they care about every day is Patient Health. Next is Employee Satisfaction.

 

[Anonymous]

It doesn't make sense for the plaintiff to sue an individual as the rep was working within his/her job description. As long as the drug rep provided reasonable fair-balance and offered a PI to the physician along some point of the discussion, then the rep should be free of harm. Plus, AZ would have a judiciary responsibility to represent the rep as the rep was working on behalf of AZ and therefore the company is ultimately responsible.

It really just goes to show you how ignorant and stupid patients can be. Why target the rep when the AZ is the institution with the deep pockets. Greedy patients + greedy lawyers = frivolous lawsuits.

 

[Anonymous]

if you read the article carefully, you will realize it is some crappy journalism with lots of typos and no fact checking. The person named there is a woman and she is a DSM. The only reason she is named is to keep the lawsuit local. AZ is famous for dragging everything to DE so they can have you run out of money before they even talk about a settlement. Trust me, I tried to sue them and they have a reputation in the legal community that they pull these tricks. Unless you have extremely deep pockets or have been truly harmed, you wont get a penny.

 

[Anonymous]

It really just goes to show you how ignorant and stupid patients can be.

And you wonder why people hate pharmaceutical sales reps.

 

[Anonymous]

I think I made a call back in 2004 when I did not list all of precautions and warnings to a physician. SHould I just turn myself in and throw myself on the mercy of the court?

 

[Anonymous]

wasn't she a rep then promoted.... or a DSM and demoted... it lists her in both jobs and lists her as a MALE. Lawyer didn't do proper job.

It is an attempt to keep the suit in state court, not federal court. The argument is that as a rep in Texas she is responsible for her own tort. It will cost the company plenty of legal fees in Houston to attend court and get her removed from the cases as illegal joining.

State Judges are elected.... the lawyers prefer them to the appointed Federal ones.