Long v. Quorum Health Res., LLC (Summary)

DATA BANK/LIBEL AND TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE

Long v. Quorum Health Res., LLC, No. 2:13-cv-189 (D. Vt. May 5, 2014)

The United States District Court for the District of Vermont granted a hospital’s motion to dismiss and denied a physician’s motion for leave to amend his complaint in a case brought by the physician against the hospital, asserting claims for libel and tortious interference with prospective business relationships.  The suit was rooted in the hospital’s report to the National Practitioner Data Bank (“NPDB”) describing the physician’s voluntary surrender of his privileges during an investigation.

After the physician made allegations that someone at the hospital was deliberately contaminating several of his surgeries with bacteria and, consequently, infecting his patients, the hospital initiated an investigation to, in part, look into the physician’s allegations.  As a result of the investigation, the hospital prohibited the physician from performing surgeries pending completion of a psychiatric evaluation.  The physician resigned the next day.  The hospital submitted a report to the NPDB indicating the physician resigned while under investigation.  The physician sued the hospital and others in 2005.  The suit ultimately resulted in a $4 million settlement in favor of the physician.  However, the settlement did not require removal of the NPDB report. In 2011, the physician challenged the report, seeking review by the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”).  HHS requested additional information from the hospital, which was provided and included a chronology of events and internal correspondence.  Based on the information, HHS declined to remove the NPDB report and added a notation that the report was properly filed.  The physician filed a second suit alleging that the information provided by the hospital in response to HHS’s request was libelous.  The physician also asserted a claim for tortious interference.

In granting the hospital’s motion to dismiss in the second suit, the court, among other things, concluded that the physician’s claims were barred by the legal doctrine of res judicata because the claims were based on events that arose out of the same core of facts as the physician’s 2005 suit.  The court also denied the physician’s request for leave to amend his complaint to add additional causes of actions, including one under Vermont’s consumer fraud statute.  According to the court, the underlying facts did not fall within the purview of the state’s consumer fraud statute because the physician was not a consumer as defined by the statute.