{domain:"www.qualitydigest.com",server:"169.47.211.87"} Skip to main content

User account menu
Main navigation
  • Topics
    • Customer Care
    • FDA Compliance
    • Healthcare
    • Innovation
    • Lean
    • Management
    • Metrology
    • Operations
    • Risk Management
    • Six Sigma
    • Standards
    • Statistics
    • Supply Chain
    • Sustainability
    • Training
  • Videos/Webinars
    • All videos
    • Product Demos
    • Webinars
  • Advertise
    • Advertise
    • Submit B2B Press Release
    • Write for us
  • Metrology Hub
  • Training
  • Subscribe
  • Log in
Mobile Menu
  • Home
  • Topics
    • 3D Metrology-CMSC
    • Customer Care
    • FDA Compliance
    • Healthcare
    • Innovation
    • Lean
    • Management
    • Metrology
    • Operations
    • Risk Management
    • Six Sigma
    • Standards
    • Statistics
    • Supply Chain
    • Sustainability
    • Training
  • Login / Subscribe
  • More...
    • All Features
    • All News
    • All Videos
    • Contact
    • Training

Management Responsibility for GMP Oversight and Control

Do you know where your daily operation stands at any given moment?

The QA Pharm
Mon, 12/07/2015 - 16:06
  • Comment
  • RSS

Social Sharing block

  • Print
Body

Historically, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has cited the Supreme Court decisions of United States v. Dotterweich (1943) and United States v. Park (1975) as Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) legal cases that establish that the manager of a corporation can be prosecuted under the Federal FDCA, even if there is no affirmation of wrongdoing on the part of the manager individually.

ADVERTISEMENT

In the Dotterweich case, the jury found Dotterweich, the president and general manager of a drug repackaging company, guilty on two counts for shipping misbranded drugs in interstate commerce, and on a third count for shipping an adulterated drug. One dissenting judge of the Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the decision on the grounds that only the corporation was the “person” subject to prosecution, thus protecting the president personally. But the Supreme Court reversed the decision, thus holding Dotterweich individually responsible, not just the manufacturer. Justice Felix Frankfurter delivered the opinion of the Court: “... under § 301, a corporation may commit an offense and all persons who aid and abet its commission are equally guilty….”

 …

Want to continue?
Log in or create a FREE account.
Enter your username or email address
Enter the password that accompanies your username.
By logging in you agree to receive communication from Quality Digest. Privacy Policy.
Create a FREE account
Forgot My Password

Add new comment

Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.
Please login to comment.
      

© 2025 Quality Digest. Copyright on content held by Quality Digest or by individual authors. Contact Quality Digest for reprint information.
“Quality Digest" is a trademark owned by Quality Circle Institute Inc.

footer
  • Home
  • Print QD: 1995-2008
  • Print QD: 2008-2009
  • Videos
  • Privacy Policy
  • Write for us
footer second menu
  • Subscribe to Quality Digest
  • About Us
  • Contact Us