Walking the Tightrope on Physician Employment Verification and Credentialing

When hospitals credential physicians, employers are often asked to complete attestation forms that might look like simple employment verifications. But sometimes, those forms go much further, crossing into opinion and evaluation territory that can expose the employer to unnecessary risk and liability, both from the hospital credentialing committee and from the employed physician.

Recently, a physician group client shared an “Employment Verification” form they were being asked to complete. The first few sections appeared routine — name, license number, dates of employment, eligibility for rehire — all factual points that HR departments handle daily. But the form went on to request information, and even opinion, well beyond those basic employment data points.

Credentialing Committees Are Doing Their Jobs — but Careful Responses Are Key

Credentialing committees are tasked with ensuring physician competence — and the stakes for hospitals are huge — so it is completely reasonable for them to ask detailed questions about a physician’s performance, judgment, clinical skill, and professionalism.  But information and details responsive to those kinds of questions are often not known by an HR department representative who may have never even met the particular clinician in person. 

Moreover, credentialing committees are well within their rights to ask broad-based and even vague questions about “any other concerns.” In fact, liability could exist for committees that don’t seek out this type of detail to meet their burden under applicable law and regulatory requirements.  The challenge comes when those well-intended questions are posed to well-intended individuals who just want to help, but who do not actually have the facts to do so.  Or worse, when those answering questions may have heard some rumors about this clinician and want to be thorough. 

The particular form our client received included a host of questions calling for judgments about the physician’s professionalism, clinical skill, and even any “potential” for concern.  One question asked whether the person signing the form had ever been informed about any “issues” that could potentially affect the physician’s clinical responsibilities. Another asked whether the physician had ever been subject to disciplinary action — and of course our client wondered, disciplinary action by whom and in what context? 

The form concluded with a request for a “Recommendation.”  Recommendation… for what, exactly? To practice medicine? To interact with patients? To be cheerful before his morning coffee? The ambiguity makes it impossible for HR to respond responsibly, and even well-intentioned attempts can result in potential negligence claims by a hospital credentialing body, or in claims of defamation by a physician employee.

When a Verification Creeps into an Evaluation

It is critical to understand what is being asked, and what isn’t:

• Employment verification confirms factual information: job title, dates of employment, and eligibility for rehire.
• Credentialing questionnaires are designed to assess a clinician’s competence and professional behavior, typically completed by medical staff, peer reviewers, or even a quality department.
• Reference checks request subjective, opinion-based assessments about performance, behavior, or judgment.

When these categories blur, employers can find themselves caught between confidentiality obligations, commitments to patient safety, and liability exposure.

Why HR Should Pause Before Responding

From a legal perspective, responding to broad or speculative questions can create significant risk, especially in states recognizing negligent credentialing as a tort. Even a partial or well-intentioned response could later be scrutinized in a claim alleging that the employer failed to disclose something “known” or “potentially” concerning.

On the other hand, declining to respond entirely might strain the employment relationship or slow down the credentialing process. Providing responsive information that is not clearly stated as an opinion could open the employer up to liability in a defamation claim because credentialing questionnaires and the resulting decisions are taken very seriously and can impact a clinician’s career. Particularly for an HR department, careful review of questions and consistent policies about whether or not certain types of questions will be answered are key.

Practical Takeaways for HR and Healthcare Employers

• Stick to verifiable facts. Provide only objective employment details unless legally required otherwise.
• Review every form carefully. If questions extend beyond HR’s scope, consult counsel before responding, particularly if there are potential or actual concerns about a clinician employee’s behavior, clinical judgment, skill, or status.
• Avoid opinion-based answers. Even vague comments can be misinterpreted in credentialing or defamation claims.
• Clarify your role. HR’s function is to verify employment, not to evaluate clinical competence.

The Bottom Line

When credentialing forms blur the line between employment verification and professional evaluation, HR should take a step back. Clear communication between HR and medical staff is essential to ensure the right information is disclosed, by the right people, in the right way, to avoid liability. Sometimes, the safest and most strategic approach is the simplest: HR verifies the facts and leaves the opinions to the diagnosticians.