Company impersonating an employee, libel?

[theubercuber]

I work at a pharmacy in Arizona, and today we got about 50 calls about a letter from the company, attributed (along with a fancy cursive signature) to our pharmacy manager. This was mailed out to probably hundreds of patients telling them we have placed their prescriptions on an auto-refilling service without consulting them, and even listed SPECIFIC medications that patient is on! Only problem is, my pharmacy manager has never heard of this before.

Now the letter is upsetting... However, I don't think it could be construed as 'malicious.' But perhaps reckless, as we'll probably lose business, and my boss will lose respect from many patients.

Does my company really have the right to impersonate my boss like that? Or does sending something out in her name with easily inferred negative connotations count as defamation and libel?

Any response is appreciated. I'm researching this now as well to find precedents.

 

[JETX]

Does my company really have the right to impersonate my boss like that? Or does sending something out in her name with easily inferred negative connotations count as defamation and libel?

Though the conduct is certainly questionable as to morality and ethics, this is a legal advice forum so I will leave my response to the legal aspects. The 'employee' has no personal action, one reason is that she has not been 'damaged'. Your own post says that any 'damage' that MIGHT occur would be to the company (source of the letter).

 

[theubercuber]

thanks!

I was also looking into 'appropriation,' because the company could be using the employee's name for commercial benefit, but that seems like a dead end.

So from a legal standpoint is this only an issue if the employee feels (and can prove) she was personally defamed or damaged by the letter?


I figured anything done by the corporate bigwigs would have been groomed by a dozen lawyers, but when I read the letters it seemed like someone just had a random bad idea they decided to make into a mass mailing. I'm just trying to make sure they aren't overstepping a legal boundary.

 

[quincy]

I reviewed Arizona Revised Statutes, Chapter 18 of Title 13, under which the laws of Pharmacy are covered, and I found a couple of areas that the mass-mailed letter seems to violate, if the pharmacy manager is a pharmacist.

It is, first of all, illegal to use the title or designation of a professional without being licensed in that profession. If the use of this title or designation is not intended to defraud or mislead, it would be a Class 2 misdemeanor. If the use is with intent to defraud or mislead, it would be a Class 5 felony. A false representation is a Class 2 misdemeanor.

It would also be considered unethical and unprofessional conduct to advertise drugs or devices or services pertaining to drugs or devices, where the advertising is untrue or misleading in any particular.

I am unclear as to what patient information was disclosed in this letter, or how the pharmacy manager/pharmacist believes the letter is defamatory. Without seeing the letter, it is hard to see how it infers "negative connotations."

 

[theubercuber]

Quincy - thanks for referring me to the Arizona Revised Statutes!

Something else I found:
Arizona Revised Statues Title 32
Ch. 18, 32-1901.01
27. "Fraudulently claiming to have performed a service"

Since the service claimed in the letter was not actually performed, I'm wondering if this would apply, or does there need to be proof that it was intentionally not performed to be fraudulent?


For clarification:

The pharmacy manager is a pharmacist, and also NOT really considered a 'manager' in the 'store' sense; she's the head pharmacist.

And by "negative connotations," the letter tells the patients we are significantly changing the mechanism used to fill their medications, namely, filling it through the computer on a calculated timed basis instead of letting them call us for refills, without their consent or permission. Patients are (correctly) interpreting this as us disrespecting their wishes to do what we as a business want. The letter also lists the specific patient's medications, which has become an issue because some were sent to wrong people at wrong addresses.

I wouldn't say it is defamatory; it says nothing negative or false about anyone. But it is asserting an undesired action and falsely attributing it to someone else.

Also as a note, the changes asserted in the letter were not made in our system (luckily!), nor have I seen any intent on actually implementing it.

 

[quincy]

The title, chapter and section of the Arizona Revised Statutes that you quote above (32-1901.01) is actually one of the sections I was referring to in my post, as well - but I mistakenly put Title 13 instead of Title 32 in my post, so I am pleased you were able to locate the proper section anyway. I have, by the way, NO idea where the "13" came from, as that number appears nowhere in my notes. I guess I was just being creative.

I am still not entirely clear about these letters. The letters were form-style letters, but individualized in part to list each patient's medications? If that is the case and, someone other than the patient received a letter listing the patient's medications, your pharmacy could find itself facing some invasion of privacy actions. The disclosure of this medical information to another or others is a violation of privacy laws.

I understand why the pharmacist feels his reputation, and the reputation of the pharmacy, has been harmed by these letters. The plan to refill prescriptions automatically seems to me to be a very bad idea, and sending out letters with a listing of patient medications in them an even worse idea. Sending them out in the name of a pharmacist, without that pharmacist's consent, is clearly a violation of the law.

Your pharmacist has good reason to take this information to an attorney in your area for a review of the letter and all of the facts. The Company seems to have created quite a legal mess and has put the pharmacist at risk of a lawsuit or two from patients.

An Arizona attorney can sort through this mess and give the pharmacist some ideas on what actions are available to take that can best remedy the situation.

Good luck.

 

[patstew]

This was mailed out to probably hundreds of patients telling them we have placed their prescriptions on an auto-refilling service without consulting them, and even listed SPECIFIC medications that patient is on! Only problem is, my pharmacy manager has never heard of this before.

To keep things on a simpler note, are you quite sure that the pharmacy manager isn't just spacing something that the company said it was going to do? Having a boss who's less than good with details and followup makes me think it could just be a matter of a memo that the manager didn't read or absorb.

 

[quincy]

What does your post even mean, Pat? It seems to have no bearing on anything. . . .

 

[theubercuber]

To keep things on a simpler note, are you quite sure that the pharmacy manager isn't just spacing something that the company said it was going to do? Having a boss who's less than good with details and followup makes me think it could just be a matter of a memo that the manager didn't read or absorb.

I asked her about that. She didn't sign anything of that specific nature, and claims to never have signed any long-winded 5+ page report that may have had this buried in it anywhere. And she isn't the spacey kind.


And Quincy - Title 13 is criminal laws, you may have been looking in there for non-pharmacy-specific forgery/impersonation statues. I know I found useful information in both 13 and 32.

You have the nature of the letters pretty much down, but I would also add they weren't intended to be read as form letters. It uses personal / friendly speech to try and sound as if it was written specifically for this person by the pharmacy manager. I would say the intent could be clearly proven to be misleading the recipient into believing it was written by someone else.

 

[quincy]

I am glad you understood Pat's post, theubercuber, because it was a puzzle to me. And thank you for trying to make sense of my 13/32 error - although it is possible that I checked out Title 13, I think it was just a plain old error on my part - although if it pointed you in a good direction, I am glad about that, too.

I think the pharmacist has enough to take to an attorney in your area for a review. It seems from what you have posted that laws have been broken, and that the pharmacist has been harmed by the mailings. The attorney can advise the pharmacist what legal actions, if any, can be taken and whether bringing any action is wise (from both an employment standpoint and a financial standpoint).