July 28, 2014

Whistleblower Lawsuit Against Drug Maker Fails Because “Off-Guideline” Marketing Does Not Constitute “Off-Label” Marketing

In welcome news for the pharmaceutical industry, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, in United States ex rel. Polansky v. Pfizer, Inc., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 163557 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 15, 2012), issued a decision distinguishing between unlawful “off-label” marketing and lawfully marketing a drug for use outside of recommended guidelines. By way of background, the Food and Drug Administration approves “labels” (which, in some cases, may be lengthy and more akin to pamphlets or brochures) that must accompany prescription medications.  A label states the purposes for which a medication has been determined to be safe and effective, and pharmaceutical companies are prohibited from promoting or marketing the medication for other “off-label” uses.

Since early 2004, Pfizer, Inc. has been defending a qui tam action that its former Director of Outcomes Management Strategies, Dr. Jesse Polansky, filed under the False Claims Act31 U.S.C. § 3729 et. seq.  In the lawsuit, which Polansky filed shortly after Pfizer terminated his employment, Polansky alleged that Pfizer encouraged physicians to prescribe the cholesterol drug Lipitor to patients even when, according to National Cholesterol Education Program Guidelines, the patients’ cardiac heart disease risk factors and cholesterol levels did not call for drug intervention.  Polansky alleged that, by marketing the drug for use by patients not within the Guidelines, Pfizer improperly induced doctors to prescribe it.  Polansky further alleged that, because Medicare and Medicaid often paid for these drugs, Pfizer’s “off-label marketing” violated the False Claims Act.  Pfizer filed a Motion to Dismiss Polansky’s claims.

In analyzing Polansky’s claims, the Court first considered the plain meaning of the term, “guidelines,” and concluded that it pertains to counseling or advice, not a mandate.  Moreover, although Lipitor’s labels (different versions were issued in 2005 and 2009) referenced the Guidelines, the Court found the context to be advisory.  Indeed, the Court observed that the Guidelines were not referenced in a section of the label entitled, “Limitations of Use.”  According to the Court, this section would have been “a perfect place to have inserted any prohibitory language had the FDA desired to do so.”

The Court also observed that Lipitor’s labels defined the drug’s essential purpose as lowering cholesterol.  Thus, according to the Court, “as long as Pfizer markets the drug to lower cholesterol, it is doing what the label permits.”

In its decision, the Court noted “the ease with which the FDA could have limited reimbursable prescriptions of Lipitor to patients within the Guidelines had it wanted to do so.”  For instance, the Court explained, the FDA could have required Pfizer to add to the label:  “This drug is not approved for, and should not be prescribed to, any patient who falls outside of the NCEP Guidelines.”  According to the Court, the FDA “commonly requires such restrictive language in labeling.”

However, the Court cautioned, “[t]his is not to say that every limitation on the use of a particular drug must be expressly set forth in the label, or that only marketing directed to an expressly proscribed use is actionable under the False Claims Act.”  The Court acknowledged that “off-label marketing includes marketing for any use that the FDA has not specifically approved.”  Nonetheless, the Court indicated that “[t]here is a distinction between off-label marketing to achieve a treatment not contemplated by the label (e.g., hair growth or curing cancer), and marketing to a patient population not specifically mandated by the label.”  The Court emphasized that “[o]ff-guideline does not equate to off-label.”  Because the Guidelines were “merely informational and advisory rather than restrictive limitations,” Polansky could not maintain his claim based on off-label marketing.

The Court granted Pfizer’s motion and dismissed the lawsuit.

©2014 Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP. All Rights Reserved

About the Author


William R. Horwitz is counsel in the firm’s Labor & Employment Practice Group. He advises employers regarding employment related issues and defends employers in litigation before state and federal courts as well as before administrative agencies and in arbitration. As a former prosecutor with the Queens County District Attorney’s Office, where he specialized in appellate litigation, together with his representation of employers for over fifteen years, Bill has extensive litigation experience in both New York and New Jersey courts. Bill’s cases have arisen in a variety...

(973) 549-7142

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is  intended to be  a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.

The National Law Review - National Law Forum LLC 4700 Gilbert Ave. Suite 47 #230 Western Springs, IL 60558  Telephone  (708) 357-3317 If you would ike to contact us via email please click here.