Burgess v. Silverglat ( 1985 )

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 .