Tortious interference with a business expectancy; Defamation; Gravamen of an action; Dismissal based on the statute of limitations; The National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB)

Agreeing with the trial court that plaintiff’s claims for defamation and tortious interference with business expectancies were virtually indistinguishable, the court affirmed summary disposition for defendant based on the statute of limitations. Plaintiff, a physician, sued defendant for tortious interference with business expectancies and defamation. Defendant successfully moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7) on the basis the claims were barred by the statute of limitations. On appeal, plaintiff argued the trial court incorrectly ruled that the gravamen of his tortious interference claim “was defamation, and therefore erred by concluding that the claim was barred by the one-year statute of limitations applicable to a claim of defamation rather than the three-year statute of limitations applicable to a” tortious interference with a business expectancy claim. The court disagreed. While “the elements of the two claims differ,” plaintiff alleged the same facts as to both claims – that “defendant made a false statement about him, then intentionally published the statement to the NPDB knowing that the statement was false and knowing that the statement would be read by prospective employers who would then decline to hire him in the future. Reading plaintiff’s complaint as a whole to determine the true nature of the claim, and focusing on the type of interest allegedly harmed,” the court determined that the gravamen of his “claim of tortious interference with business expectancies is defamation. Because the true nature of the claim is defamation, the period of limitations applicable to defamation controls and in this case bars plaintiff’s claim labeled as tortious interference with business expectancies.” Thus, the trial court did not err in granting defendant summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7).