Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 28, 2025

Validation of Therapeutic Agent Conjugation to Polyvinyl Alcohol-Coated Medical Devices
Published on: November 29, 2024
Holding Pharmaceutical and Medical Device Executives Accountable as Responsible Corporate Officers
C Joseph Ross Daval1, Jerry Avorn1, Aaron S Kesselheim1
1Program On Regulation, Therapeutics, and Law (PORTAL), Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Importance:
When a drug or medical device company violates federal law, the government has a powerful tool to use: the Park doctrine. The aim of the doctrine is to protect patients from the harms of an unsafe or fraudulent medical marketplace by targeting the executives who run the companies that make revenues on these products while violating federal law, rather than have that risk borne by patients or impersonal corporate entities; however, public reports of drug and device company executives being prosecuted in Park doctrine cases are uncommon.
Objective:
To identify Park prosecutions and characterize their role in US Department of Justice (DOJ) enforcement efforts related to misconduct in the drug and medical device industry.
Evidence Review:
A systematic search of Westlaw, Google Scholar, DOJ press releases, and the legal literature was conducted.
Findings:
Thirteen cases of executives from 6 drug and medical device companies prosecuted under the Park doctrine since 2000 were identified. The prosecutions resulted in 11 guilty pleas and 2 jury trials, leading to 2 convictions. Of the 6 companies, 3 were drug manufacturers, 2 were medical device manufacturers, and 1 was a compounding pharmacy. All 3 drug manufacturers were opioid manufacturers, of which 2 executives were charged for unlawful promotion, and 1 was charged for manufacturing errors. Both device manufacturer executives were charged with unlawful promotion. All but 3 prosecutions alleged the defendants' complicity or personal involvement in the misconduct, which Park does not require. By contrast, most large settlements with the DOJ over alleged misconduct in the past 2 decades did not result in individual liability for executives.
Conclusions And Relevance:
These findings suggest that the government has not exercised the full scope of its authority to prosecute corporate officials responsible for the illegal behavior of the drug and device companies they run. Enforcement under a reinvigorated Park doctrine could better promote the doctrine's goal of protecting patients.
Related Concept Videos
Accountability and Responsibility of a Nurse II
For example, a nurse demonstrating respect and compassion might listen attentively to a patient's concerns, provide...
Accountability and Responsibility of a Nurse I
Drug Control Governance: Regulatory Bodies and Their Impact
Drug Regulation
Pharmacovigilance
This process, termed pharmacovigilance, aims to detect, evaluate, and minimize harmful effects related to medication use. The data collection for pharmacovigilance depends on spontaneous reporting systems, where healthcare professionals or patients voluntarily report suspected ADRs.
In some cases, there...
Prescription, Nonprescription and Orphan Drugs
The misuse and addiction to prescription drugs is a growing problem that can affect people of all age groups, specifically teenagers. This can happen when prescription medications are used in ways not intended by the prescriber, such as taking someone else's prescription or using medication for...

