Open Letter To Forest Labs Leadership

[Anonymous]

Hey Rep douche, guess what? HQ is now required to provide detailed info on EVERY reportable expense to each doc's offices before it's made available to the public via Sunshine Act. So all your offices are going to see those fake lunches and snacks you submitted for them. You better pray they will cover for you. And guess what else? When a doc get's word that you forged their signature on sign-in sheets and attributed fake expenses assigned to their NPI, he/she has the option to press charges. The best part- zero liability on the DM's side. Good luck Sparky!

From douche rep:
The sunshine act blah blah blah. You are so dumb. We hate you. Sign-in sheets? You are busted.
"The best part of you ran down the crack of your mama's ass and ended up as a brown stain on the mattress".
Sergeant Hartman





Sparky

 

[Anonymous]

Not sure how it works, but as I understand it companies have to start collecting data for submission on Jan 1. The submission is March 31st. Physicians will be able to view and correct anything for a 45 day period after that (I think). This is probably what the DM means by HQ providing info. Can you imagine offices flooded with calls and letters from every companies compliance departments over every lunch, snack, Snickers bar, etc? Could happin but doubt it.

The info for first 3 months of year published in September. This cycle repeats on a 90 day basis. This is how I understand things.

Some docs might never check or care how much it says they accepted from whom.

"Gee I accepted $5.50 in food from Forest on January 7th. Hmmm... I do lunches and let reps bring in treats all the time. It's now June 11th. Shoot guess I did. I don't know.."

This will probably be most often the case - if they look.

Now when anal MD who does not participate in lunches for the group looks and has an issue with his name in the mix, that could be a different story.

Finally, the idiot rep who expenses something to a doc who checks and knows they were on vacation back in January - now there is a problem.

Scenario: I book a lunch in Nov. for Jan. Staff tells me the number of people to bring food for. They do tell that anal MD is on vacation(or could be out sick). If I buy food for anal MD he WILL be shown as participating. It becomes the staff's problem, not mine. ^you obviously have zero common sense, therefore you are perfect for the DM job at Forest.

"we know who you are; you are just so dumb"
Antoine Dodson

 

[Anonymous]

Scenario: I book a lunch in Nov. for Jan. Staff tells me the number of people to bring food for. They do not tell that the anal MD is on vacation(or could be out sick). If I buy food for anal MD he WILL be shown as participating. It becomes the staff's problem, not mine. You obviously have zero common sense, therefore you are perfect for the DM job at Forest.

"we know who you are; you are just so dumb"
Antoine Dodson

Edited

 

[Anonymous]

Scenario: I book a lunch in Nov. for Jan. Staff tells me the number of people to bring food for. They do tell that anal MD is on vacation(or could be out sick). If I buy food for anal MD he WILL be shown as participating. It becomes the staff's problem, not mine. ^you obviously have zero common sense, therefore you are perfect for the DM job at Forest.

"we know who you are; you are just so dumb"
Antoine Dodson

Strokey-

it will not be the staff's problem. Remember the signature you put on the compliance sheet last month? No staff signed it just you.

Sorry poppy.... sometimes it be's like that.

 

[Anonymous]

Strokey-

it will not be the staff's problem. Remember the signature you put on the compliance sheet last month? No staff signed it just you.

Sorry poppy.... sometimes it be's like that.

Dude - Forest does not require sign in sheets.

Either you are an idiot or a poser.

 

[Anonymous]

This person obviously doesn't know what he's talking about and just
throwing around his words as scare tactics. No one is going to call a doctor
and ask him if he has a lunch or a cup of coffee 8
Months ago. Can you imagine if every company's expense department started bombarding
doctors and office verifying lunches.
Have some common sense!!!! Signin sheets??? What a joke!
The second sign in sheets even come into play at forest I will be Very surprised
if any rep will even attempt a lunch

Strokey-

it will not be the staff's problem. Remember the signature you put on the compliance sheet last month? No staff signed it just you.

Sorry poppy.... sometimes it be's like that.

 

[Anonymous]

Managers here were mostly very poor in the field. They lie and say how great they were. Most of them are just really bad people at work and in their personal lives. The good one are demoted, leave, or are on medical leave.
The executives at Forest have so much to be proud of. People do not matter here.

 

[Anonymous]

Dear managers & executives-
Those of you posting the demeaning comments, claims of "HQ" enforcement, and thinking you're not accountable for the expense reports you approve or your reps behavior (fake calls, sigs, etc.) are ignorant. The "training" you go through doesn't protect you.
Managers and execs are NOT protected by a corporate veil. Yes, YOU as an individual can be held PERSONALLY liable for not only these infractions, but for the evaluations you write, infliction of emotional distress, unethical conduct, playing favorites. Following orders doesn't hold up in a court of law-especially in a jury trial. The jurors are not going to sympathize with you over a representative with valid complaints and documentation.
Get off your high horses fools!

 

[Anonymous]

The Growth Company, Inc. Reveals Guidance for Managers to Avoid Personal Liability Lawsuits


Posted: Sep 12, 2012 2:21 AM PDT
This article was originally distributed via PRWeb. PRWeb, WorldNow and this Site make no warranties or representations in connection therewith.

SOURCE: The Growth Company
Several state and federal court rulings have held supervisors personally liable for their employment actions. Some of these cases involved six-figure judgments. Almost all of them took years to wind their way through the courts.

Anchorage, AK (PRWEB) September 11, 2012

When things go wrong, those harmed or ticked off look around for someone to blame. Whomever they choose may face a lawsuit that they don’t see coming and don’t deserve – particularly if they’re a supervisor who assumes ticked off former employees will only sue the company and not them individually.

Surprisingly, the normal corporate wall limiting personal liability doesn’t completely protect supervisors. Several state and federal court rulings have held supervisors personally liable for their employment actions. According to D.Green as reported on BegosHorgan.com, “Executives, supervisors and human resource employees have been held personally liable in cases involving failure to pay wages or overtime, failure to allow unpaid leave, failure to make pension contributions, wrongful termination, wrongful hiring, infliction of emotional distress, defamation, failure to deposit withholding taxes, and on other theories, as well.” Some of these cases involved six-figure judgments. Almost all of them took years to wind their way through the courts.

 

[Anonymous]

Dear managers & executives-
Those of you posting the demeaning comments, claims of "HQ" enforcement, and thinking you're not accountable for the expense reports you approve or your reps behavior (fake calls, sigs, etc.) are ignorant. The "training" you go through doesn't protect you.
Managers and execs are NOT protected by a corporate veil. Yes, YOU as an individual can be held PERSONALLY liable for not only these infractions, but for the evaluations you write, infliction of emotional distress, unethical conduct, playing favorites. Following orders doesn't hold up in a court of law-especially in a jury trial. The jurors are not going to sympathize with you over a representative with valid complaints and documentation.
Get off your high horses fools!

if you do your job the right way you have nothing to worry about. Some people want to place blame on someone else and don't accept responsibility for their own actions. Fake calls are 100% on the person doing them. fake sigs is forgery and has nothing to do with anyone else and the only person prosecuted will be that person. The same is true with expenses, the person that submits the questionable receipt will own the outcome.

 

[Anonymous]

Oh cry me a river patsy. Any other words of wisdom?
Do your job the right way and go sit in a corner

if you do your job the right way you have nothing to worry about. Some people want to place blame on someone else and don't accept responsibility for their own actions. Fake calls are 100% on the person doing them. fake sigs is forgery and has nothing to do with anyone else and the only person prosecuted will be that person. The same is true with expenses, the person that submits the questionable receipt will own the outcome.

 

[Anonymous]

Not true sparky. If somebody has been forging sigs for a long time and all the DMs and RD are 100% aware, but choose not to do anything about it, even though they have PROOF, they can be charged also.

 

[Anonymous]

Not true sparky. If somebody has been forging sigs for a long time and all the DMs and RD are 100% aware, but choose not to do anything about it, even though they have PROOF, they can be charged also.

strokey-

if anyone has been forging sigs for any amount of time....they would be dismissed. If the DM KNEW it (watched the person sign the forged name) he/she would go to.

not sure what you mean by proof..proof of what?

in the end i can tell you that there is more corporate validating of sigs than you may realize.

 

[Anonymous]

U r a fool. Managers don't want to get involved. If u think what was previously posted is incorrect, u r dumber than u look.

 

[Anonymous]

U r a fool. Managers don't want to get involved. If u think what was previously posted is incorrect, u r dumber than u look.

i don't think.... I know.

 

[Anonymous]

Sigs from dead, moved, hospitalized Drs. Total no see drs. The proof is in the pudding you dick

 

[Anonymous]

Sigs from dead, moved, hospitalized Drs. Total no see drs. The proof is in the pudding you dick

if you have knowledge of this then you have the number to call and report what you know. How do you so much on what others are doing?

get your dick out of the pudding and maybe you will be successful.......

 

[Anonymous]

Not going to give YOU the info dickwad. It's clowns like you that still believe OJ didn't kill 2 people either u stupid FU-K

 

[Anonymous]

Not going to give YOU the info dickwad. It's clowns like you that still believe OJ didn't kill 2 people either u stupid FU-K

Strokey......i didn't say give it to me. But if you are saying you know the forged sigs to be true and at the same time say that mgt knows and does nothing then you are no different are you.

have no idea what the OJ reference has to do with this. Still got lots more learning to go grasshopper..

 

[Anonymous]

Lets face it, almost every office call is a fake call. If you really see the dr and can't gay a sig for at least 1 sample, you need help. DMs know this, after all, we were once reps.