Burgess v. Silverglat ( 1985 )


Menu:
  •                                             No.     85-170
    ITJ THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE O F MONTANA
    1985
    RICHARD BURGESS,
    P l a i n t i f f and A p p e l l a n t ,
    -vs-
    MICHAEL J . SILVERGLAT, M.D.,
    D e f e n d a n t and R e s p o n d e n t .
    APPEAL FROM:      D i s t r i c t C o u r t of t h e F o u r t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t ,
    I n and f o r t h e C o u n t y of M i s s o u l a ,
    T h e H o n o r a b l e J a m e s B. W h e e l i s , Judge p r e s i d i n g .
    COUNSEL O F RECORD:
    For Appellant:
    Richard Burgess,             p r o se, D e e r L o d g e , Montana
    F o r Respondent:
    Garlington,          L o h n & R o b i n s o n , M i s s o u l a , Montana
    S u b m i t t e d on B r i e f s :   May 3 0 ,   1985
    Decided:        July 30, 1985
    Clerk
    Mr. Justice Frank B. Morrison, Jr., delivered the Opinion of
    the Court.
    Richard Burgess filed this action on December 18, 1984,
    seeking   damages    for    libel,    slander     and   mental    anguish.
    Dr. Silverglat filed a motion to dismiss on January 18, 1985.
    The District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, by order
    dated February 5, 1985, dismissed the case and entered judg-
    ment in favor of Dr. Silverglat.              Mr. Burgess appeals.       We
    affirm.
    During March 1984, Richard Burgess was in the custody of
    Mineral County on a        criminal charge.        Dr. Silverglat was
    appointed by the court upon motion of Mr. Burgess' counsel to
    conduct     an    examination    of     Mr.     Burgess      pursuant    to
    5 46-14-202, MCA.       The purpose of the psychiatric examination
    was to determine if Mr. Burgess' assaultive behavior was a
    result of his intoxication and whether the intoxication was
    voluntarily produced.
    Dr. Silverglat conducted the examination of Mr. Burgess
    on March 7, 1984, and a psychiatric evaluation report was
    submitted    to   the    court   in   April     1984.        According   to
    Mr. Burgess, the report was sealed by order of court in July
    1984, but was used by the Montana State Prison and the Board
    of Pardons during a parole hearing on November 30, 1984, and
    a pre-release screening on September 26, 1984.
    Mr. Burgess alleges the report is false, fraudulent and
    defamatory, and raises the following issue on appeal.
    Whether under the circumstances of this case, the i n n -
    rru
    nity provided to members, officers, or agents of the judici-
    ary    under      5 2-9-112,     MCA,    extends        to     respondent,
    Dr. Silverglat.
    Section 2-9-112, MCA, states as follows:
    "2-9-112.  Immunity from suit for judi-
    cial acts and omissions.  (1) The state
    and o t h e r g o v e r n m e n t a l u n i t s a r e immune
    from s u i t f o r a c t s o r o m i s s i o n s o f t h e
    judiciary.
    " ( 2 ) A member, o f f i c e r , o r a g e n t o f t h e
    j u d i c i a r y i s immune from s u i t f o r damages
    a r i s i n g from h i s l a w f u l d i s c h a r g e o f a n
    o f f i c i a l duty associated with judicial
    actions of the court.
    " ( 3 ) The j u d i c i a r y i n c l u d e s t h o s e c o u r t s
    e s t a b l i s h e d i n accordance with A r t i c l e
    V I I o f The C o n s t i t u t i o n o f t h e S t a t e o f
    Montana.
    The D i s t r i c t C o u r t found t h a t i n s u b m i t t i n g t h e p s y c h i -
    a t r i c r e p o r t upon which t h i s c l a i m i s b a s e d , D r .               Silverglat
    a c t e d a s a n a g e n t o f t h e S t a t e o f Montana and more p a r t i c u -
    l a r l y a n a g e n t o f t h e j u d i c i a r y o f t h e S t a t e o f Montana.              The
    r e p o r t was p r e p a r e d a s a p a r t o f t h e l a w f u l d i s c h a r g e o f h i s
    o f f i c i a l d u t i e s and p u r s u a n t t o 5 2-9-112,            MCA,      the D i s t r i c t
    C o u r t found D r .      S i l v e r g l a t was immune from s u i t .
    The a p p e l l a n t c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e r e p o r t was n o t a l a w f u l
    d i s c h a r g e o f a n o f f i c i a l d u t y b e c a u s e i t was f a l s e and f r a u d -
    ulent.         H e m a i n t a i n s t h a t r e s p o n d e n t knew t h e i n f o r m a t i o n i n
    t h e r e p o r t was f a l s e and o n l y made t h e s t a t e m e n t s t o m i s l e a d
    the court.           Appellant a l s o contends t h a t respondent v i o l a t e d
    S 45-7-207,           MCA,      regarding         tampering         with      or     fabricating
    p h y s i c a l evidence.
    We      do      not      reach       the       issue       of     whether           or    not
    Dr.   S i l v e r g l a t i s p r o v i d e d immunity a s a n a g e n t o f t h e j u d i -
    c i a r y under       S 2-9-112,         MCA,     because       the psychiatric report
    was a p r i v i l e g e d communication u n d e r 5 27-1-804,                         MCA.       Sec-
    t i o n 27-1-804,         s t a t e s t h a t " [ a ] p r i v i l e g e d p u b l i c a t i o n i s one
    made:        ...       ( 2 ) i n any l e g i s l a t i v e o r j u d i c i a l p r o c e e d i n g o r
    i n any o t h e r        official       proceeding          authorized         by     law    . . ."
    (emphasis added)                 One r e q u i s i t e    of    a defamation a c t i o n           is
    t h a t t h e communication must n o t b e p r i v i l e g e d .                      Any m a t t e r
    s t a t e d o r published i n a l e g i s l a t i v e o r j u d i c i a l              proceeding
    is   privileged         and     cannot        be   the      subject      of     a    defamation
    action.        Skinner v.         Pistoria         (Mont.    1 9 8 1 ) , 6 3 
    3 P.2d 672
    ,   38
    St.Rep.      1501.       Clearly,       Dr.    Silverglat's           r e p o r t w a s made a s
    part    of    a    judicial       proceeding          and    is protected            from t h i s
    action.
    S k i n n e r g o e s on t o s t a t e t h a t t h e p r i v i l e g e c o n f e r r e d b y
    S 27-1-804,        MCA,     i s an a b s o l u t e p r i v i l e g e .     T h i s means t h a t
    it would n o t m a t t e r i f t h e r e p o r t w e r e m a l i c i o u s l y m o t i v a t e d ,
    a s a p p e l l a n t contends.        The p r i v i l e g e s t i l l h o l d s .
    We a f f i r m t h e r e s u l t o f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t o r d e r .
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 85-170

Filed Date: 7/30/1985

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 3/3/2016