Frengell v. InterCare Community Health Network demonstrates the counterintuitive nature of certain peer review actions.
Dr. Frengell’s employment was terminated following the inappropriate prescription of narcotics. InterCare reported Dr. Frengell to the National Practitioners’ Data Bank, although the report was not required and the court concluded, and InterCare admitted, that it had not provided any due process protections to Dr. Frengell. InterCare eventually voided the report approximately one year later.
Dr. Frengell filed suit alleging that the wrongful report had defamed him because it represented that some peer review activity had taken place. The court held, that despite the fact the report was wrongfully filed and ultimately voided, the facts contained in the report were basically truthful and therefore did not constitute defamation.