A hospital terminated a physician from its residency program. When the hospital learned that the physician had misrepresented that he was still in the residency program, the hospital reported him to the state medical board and to the American Board of Internal Medicine. Based in part on the hospital's report, the state medical board determined not to issue the physician a license. The physician sued the hospital for defamation.

The Ohio Court of Appeals granted summary judgment to the hospital. It found that the issue of whether the doctor had misrepresented his engagement in the hospital's residency program was precluded from relitigation since it had been determined by the Board. The court recognized the decision of the Board as having the same effect as a judgment from a court of competent jurisdiction. Because it had been determined, definitively, that the physician engaged in a misrepresentation, the court held that he could not maintain a claim for defamation.

The court also held that the reports to the medical board and the American Board of Internal Medicine were privileged and the physician failed to produce evidence of actual malice sufficient to overcome the privilege. It also held that one doctor's statement that the resident was "crazy" was merely an expression of opinion and thus could not subject the doctor to liability.

However, the court ruled that the physician had raised a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the due procedures in the resident handbook were followed and remanded the case to the lower court for further proceedings on that claim only.