Ashraf v. Adventist Health System/Sunbelt, Inc.
2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 10158
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 6th2016Background
- Dr. Sualeh Ashraf was a cardiologist at Florida Hospital Apopka whose clinical privileges were suspended in June 2007 and later permanently revoked after an internal investigation (IRC), a Medical Executive Committee (MEC) adoption of IRC findings, a Fair Hearing Panel, and Board approval.
- Florida Hospital reported the adverse action and the IRC’s 22 factual findings verbatim to the National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB) on December 17, 2008, as required by federal law.
- The NPDB produces confidential reports available to authorized entities and sends a copy to the subject; federal procedures also allow subjects to file exceptions to report contents.
- In October 2014 Ashraf sued the hospital for defamation (and sought injunctive relief), alleging the NPDB report contained false defamatory material that caused recent loss of employment opportunities.
- The hospital moved to dismiss, arguing Ashraf’s defamation claim was time-barred by the two-year statute of limitations under Florida’s single publication rule; the trial court granted dismissal.
- The Fifth District affirmed, holding the statute of limitations began when the hospital first reported to the NPDB and later issuances to authorized entities do not restart the limitations period; the court certified the question of great public importance to the Florida Supreme Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the single publication rule or the multiple publication rule governs defamation claims based on NPDB reports | Ashraf argued each subsequent dissemination (or effect on new employers) creates a new publication and new cause of action | Hospital argued the NPDB report is a single publication and the two-year limitations period accrues at first report to NPDB | Held: Single publication rule applies; limitations runs from initial NPDB report date |
| Whether plaintiff’s lack of knowledge of downstream disseminations defeats application of single publication rule | Ashraf argued plaintiffs may not learn of report reissues and thus would be unfairly barred | Hospital argued NPDB sends report copies and provides procedures to challenge contents, so subjects have actual knowledge | Held: NPDB procedures and notice to subjects mean they will know report contents; lack of downstream notice not an issue |
Key Cases Cited
- Wagner v. Flanagan, 629 So. 2d 113 (Fla. 1993) (statute of limitations for libel/slander begins at time of publication)
- Doe v. Am. Online, Inc., 783 So. 2d 1010 (Fla. 2001) (each repetition of a defamatory statement is a publication)
- Musto v. BellSouth Telecommunications Corp., 748 So. 2d 296 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (single publication rule inapplicable to credit slander context)
- Daytona Beach News-Journal Corp. v. Firstamerica Dev. Corp., 181 So. 2d 565 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966) (single publication rule rationale for widely circulated libel)
- Pierson v. Orlando Reg’l Healthcare Sys., [citation="451 Fed. App'x 862"] (11th Cir. 2012) (applying single publication rule to NPDB report; limitations ran from initial report)