Not on its own. The entry covers teaching or research, so the assessment turns on what the appointment actually involves rather than on the title conferred by the institution. An appointment carrying a faculty title can still be built largely around clinical service.
The activity decides, not the letterhead
Departments assign faculty titles for many reasons, including grant eligibility and trainee supervision. The immigration question is narrower: what the physician will spend working time doing. Where the answer includes a clinical service line, that fact should be surfaced and reviewed rather than left out of the description.
Counsel can then advise whether the appointment fits the entry or whether another route needs to be considered. A concrete way to test the title is to ask what happens if the physician declines the clinical service line: does the appointment still exist, and does the salary still come from the same budget line? If the post collapses without the clinical component, the clinical component is the job.
Hypothetical example: a clinical research coordinator and a physician appear in the same recruitment package for a trials unit, and the coordinator's TN question is a separate one, because a TN request for that role turns on whether the duties fit a profession that appears on the USMCA list, and a coordinator title decides nothing by itself. The physician's question stays inside the teaching-or-research wording. Neither person is helped by a letter that describes the unit instead of the individual.