A ft erexami ni ng the br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det erm i ned * unani m ous l ythator al ar gum entw oul d notm at er i al l yas s i s tt he det erm i nat i on of th is a p p e a l. See F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a )(2 ); 1 0 th C ir. R . 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a se is th e re fo re o rd e re d su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t. T h is o rd e r a n d ju d g m e n t is notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptundert he doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . I tm aybe ci t ed, how ever , fori t s per s uas i ve val ue c o n s is te n t w ith F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 2 .1 a n d 1 0 th C ir . R . 3 2 .1 . 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### M ar c h 28,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E T E N T H C IR C U IT

J O E B R O C K , i ndi vi dual l yand on behal f of a l l s i m i l ar l ys i tuat ed p e r s o n s ; S ANDR A M CC UL L OUGH, P l ai nti ffs, and VI NC E DI M AR CO , P lain tiff-A p p e llan t, v. P RES BYTE RI AN H EAL THCARE S E R V IC E S , IN C ., D efe ndant - A ppel l ee. N o. 06- 2192 ( D . C. N o. CV - 99 - 18 9 M V / RH S)

(D . N .M .)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e LU CE RO , BROR BY , and M c CO NNELL , C i rcui tJudg es.-2-

V in c e D iM a rc o a p p e a ls th e d istric t co u rt’s g ra n t o f su m m a ryju d g m e n t in favo r of Presby t eri an H eal thcare S ervi ces, Inc. D i M arco broug ht s uitagainst Pr es byt er i an under31 U . S. C . § 3730( h) of the Feder al Fal s e C l ai m s A ct , al l egi ng th a t P re s b yte ri a n re ta lia te d a g a in s t h im fo r r e p o rt in g its f ra u d u le n t a c tiv itie s . S p e c i fi c a l l y, D i M a r c o c l a i m e d t h a tP r e s b yt e r i a n p r o v i d e d m i s l e a d i n g , d e fa m a t o r y, a n d fa lse e m p lo ym e n t in fo rm a tio n to a p ro sp e c tiv e e m p lo y e r, th e re b yc a u sin g h im t o l os e a j ob offe r . I n i t s s um m aryj udgm entrul i ng, the di s tr i ctcour thel d that D i M arco grant ed P res by t eri an ab sol ute i m m un i tyfrom sui tbysi gn i ng a rel ease thatauthor i zed the di s cl os ur e of hi s empl oym enthi s t or y . E xer ci s i ng j ur i s di ct i on u n d e r2 8 U. S . C. § 1 2 9 1 , we a ffi r m. I . F act s and P roce edi ngs D i M ar co i s a phy s i ci an’ s as s i s t antw ho form er l yw or ked atone of Pr es byt er i an’ s hos pi t al s , L i ncol n C ountyM edi cal C ent er( L C M C ) . A ft erl earni ng thatpat i ent s atL C M C w er e bei ng bi l l ed fors ervi ces t heydi d notr ece i ve, D i M ar co i ni t i at ed a qui t am sui tand r es i gned. T hats ui tw as eventual l ys et t l ed, and s om e thr ee y ear s l at er , D i M ar co obt ai ned a pr ovi s i onal offe rof empl oym ent atanotherhos pi t al , G er al d C hampi on R egi onal M edi cal C ent er( G C R M C ) . T he j ob offe rfr om G C R M C w as cont i ngentupon r ece i ptof D i M ar co’ s empl oym ent hi s t oryatL C M C . T o fac i l i t at e the tr ans ferof thi s i nform at i on, D i M ar co s i gned re le a s e s a u th o ri z in g th e d is c lo s u re o f h is e m p lo ym e n t h is to ry to G C R M C .-3-

A f ter re c e iv in g D iM a rc o ’s in fo rm a tio n , G C R M C o p ted n o t to h ire h im . Its deci s i on w as bas ed i n parton a form ent i t l ed, “H os pi t al A ffi l i at i on E val uat i on. ” A pl ee. Suppl . A pp. at45- 46. O n thi s form , Pr es byt er i an di s cl os ed, among ot her thi ngs , that“[D i M ar co] t erm i nat ed 9/ 30/ 00, ” fa i l ed t o “cont i nuous l yr ender [] t he l evel of ca r e es t abl i s hed by[LC M C ] , ” and “ had t o be couns el ed r egar di ng pat i ent r el at i ons w i th i nadequa t e i m pr ovement . ” Id. A s s er t i ng t hatthes e r epr es ent at i ons w er e fa l s e, del i ber at el ym i s l eadi ng, and i n r et al i at i on forhi s fi l i ng of the ea r l i er qui t am sui t , D i M ar co s oughtr el i ef unde rthe Fal s e C l ai m s A ct ’ s w hi s t l ebl ow er p ro v is io n , 3 1 U .S .C . § 3 7 3 0 (h ). T he di s tr i ctcourtr ej ect ed D i M ar co’ s cont ent i on, how ever , rul i ng thathe c o n s e n te d to P re s b yte ri a n ’s d is c lo s u re s b ys ig n in g a b ro a d R e le a s e a n d Im m u n ity. T h e c o u rt h e ld th a t b ysig n in g th e re lea se , D iM a rc o e x ten d e d a b so lu te im m u n ity to P re s b yte ri a n a n d th e re b yre lin q u is h e d h is ri g h t to s u e fo r r e ta lia tio n . A ddi t i onal l y , beca us e the l anguage i n the r el eas e w as cl earand unambi guous , t he courtdecl i ned t o cons i derw hetheranotherr el eas e s i gned byD i M ar co l i m i t ed P resb yteri an ’s i m m u n ityto d iscl o su res m ad e in g o o d fa ith . H en ce , the c o u rt g ra n te d s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t in fa v o r o f P re s b yte ri a n . D iM a rc o su b se q u e n tlyfiled th is a p p e a l. F irst, h e c laim s h e in ten d e d to r el eas e Pr es byt er i an onl yfordi s cl os ur es m ade i n good fai th. Second, he ar gues th e d is tr ic t c o u rt im p ro p e rl yc ite d a c a s e th a t h a s b e e n s u p e rs e d e d b ys ta tu te . T h ird , h e c laim s P re sb yter ian v io late d th e im p lied c o v e n a n t o f g o o d -fa ith a n d fa ir-4-

d e a lin g . A n d fin a lly , D iM a rc o c o n ten d s P re sb yter ian p o ss e ss e d a t m o st a c o n d itio n a l p ri v ile g e , w h ic h it lo s t b yp ro v id in g fa ls e in fo rm a tio n . II . A n a ly sis W e re v iew th e d istric t co u rt’s g ra n t o f su m m a ryju d g m e n t d e n o v o to d e ter m in e w h e th e r a g e n u in e iss u e o f m a ter ial fa c t ex ists, v iew in g th e re c o rd in th e lig h t m o s t fa v o ra b le to th e n o n -m o v in g p a rt y , D iM a rc o . C ampb el lv. G am bro Heal thcar e, Inc. , ___ F . 3 d ___ , N o . 0 6 -30 6 2 , 2 0 0 7 W L 7 0 6 9 3 4 , at *4 (10 th C ir . M a r. 9 , 2 0 0 7 ). A . D i M ar co fi r s tcl ai m s the di s tr i ctcourterr ed i n concl udi ng thatPr es byt er i an w as abs ol ut el yi m m une fr om s ui t . H i s pos i t i on i s es s ent i al l yt hathe di d not i nt end t o be bound bythe t erm s of the R el eas e and I m m uni ty , butr atherbyt he ter m s o f a n o th e r re lea se p ro v id in g fo r o n lyg o o d -fa ith d isc lo su re s. T h is

“ g o o d -fa ith ” re lea se , D iM a rc o a rg u e s, lim ited P re sb yter ian ’s im m u n ityto g o o d -fa ith d is c lo s u re s . B efor e addr es s i ng D i M ar co’ s cont ent i on, how ever , w e fi r s texami ne N ew M e x ico ’s la w g o v e rn in g th e d isc lo su re o f e m p lo ym e n t in fo rm a tio n . C o u rts in N ew M exi co have es t abl i s hed thatw her e an e m pl oy ee c ons ent s t o the r el eas e of in fo rm a tio n , a fo rm e r e m p lo y e r e njo y s a b s o lu te im m u n ity f ro m s u it. B akerv. B haj an , 8 7 1 P .2 d 3 7 4 , 3 7 7 -7 8 (N .M . 1 9 9 4 ); G engl erv. P hel ps , 589 P. 2d 1056, 1057- 58 ( N . M . C t . A pp. 1978) . T hi s rul e i s pr edi cat ed on the not i on that“[i ] n t he-5-

bus i nes s and pr ofes s i onal w or l d, publ i c pol i cynece s s i t at es the di s cl os ur e of a n empl oy ee’ s pr i ors ervi ces w hen i nqui ryi s m ade w i th the cons entof the empl oy ee. ” G engl er , 589 P. 2d at1058. B ycontr as t , w her e an e m pl oy ee ha s not con sent ed to the rel ease of h i s em ploym ent i nfo rm at i on , a form er em ploy er has a qual i fi ed pr i vi l ege t o r el eas e i nform at i on “i f fora pr operpurpos e and t o one havi ng a l egi t i m at e i nt er es ti n the s t at ement s . ” B aker , 871 P. 2d at378 ( ci t at i on om i t t ed) . T hi s qual i fi ed pr i vi l ege a t t ache s “t o pr ot ectfr om l i abi l i tythos e w ho, forthe purpos e of f

ur ther i ng t he i nt er es ti n ques t i on, gi ve i nform at i on w hi ch, w i thoutthei rknow l edge orr eckl es s di s r egar d as t o i t s fal s i ty , i s i n fac tuntrue. ” G engl er , 5 8 9 P .2 d a t 1 0 5 8 (q u o ta tio n o m itte d ). A ppl y i ng thes e pr i nci pl es t o the ca s e befor e us , w e conc l ude thatby sig n in g th e R e lea se a n d Im m u n ity , D iM a rc o g ra n ted P re sb yter ian a b so lu te im m u n ityf

ro m su it. T h e e x p re ss ter m s o f th e re lea se p ro v id e , “I e x ten d a b so lu te im m u n ityto , rele a se f ro m a n yliab ili ty , inc lu d in g c iv il l iab ili ty , an d a g re e n o t to sue . . . anyt hir d p art i es . . . for anyact i on s, recom m end at i on s, report s, s t at ement s [, ] comm uni cat i ons , ordi s cl os ur es . ” A pl t . A pp. at41. I tcont i nues , “I a l s o e x p r e s s l ya u th o r i z e s a i d th i r d p a r t i e s t o r e l e a s e th i s i n fo r ma t i o n t o [ GCRM C] and i t s author i zed r epr es ent at i ve upon r eques t . ” Id. L as t l y , the R el eas e and I m m uni tydefi nes the t erm “thi r d par t i es ” t o m ean “ al l i ndi vi dual s fr om w hom i nform at i on has been r eques t ed. ” Id. T hi s unambi guous , al l - i ncl us i ve l anguage d e n o te s th e b ro a d s c o p e o f D iM a rc o ’s c o n s e n t, s ee Baker , 871 P. 2d at377, and-6-

cl ear l ym ani fes t s hi s i nt entt o gr antabs ol ut e i m m uni tyt o thi r d par t i es s uch as Pr es byt er i an. St i l l , D i M ar co i ns i s t s t hathe i nt ended t o r el eas e Pr es byt er i an onl yfor di s cl os ur es m ade i n good fai th. T o s ubs t ant i at e thi s cl ai m , he offer s the depos i t i on t es t i m onyof G C R M C ’ s m edi cal s t aff coor di nat or , D i ane M el endr ez, and argues i tshow s that G C R M C used o nlythe so-cal l ed “g oo d-fai th” rel ease w h e n o b tain in g in fo rm a tio n f ro m o th e r fa c ili ties . W e n e e d n o t co n sid e r th is e v id e n c e b e c a u se th e R e lea se a n d Im m u n ityc lea rlya n d u n a m b ig u o u slym a n ife sts h is in ten t. See Mont oya v. Vi l la Li nda Mal l, Ltd. , 793 P. 2d 258, 259 ( N . M . 1990) ( “abs entan ambi gui ty , a courti s bound t o i nt erpr etand enfor ce a contr act ’ s cl ear l anguage ”) . N everthel es s , ourr evi ew of thi s t es t i m onyi ndi cat es that M s . M el endr ez us ed the good- fai th r el eas e i nt er change abl yw i th the R el eas e and Im m u n ityfo r p u rp o se s o f c o n v e n ien c e . In d e e d , w h e n a sk e d if o n lyth e g o o d -fa ith release w o u ld b e p rov ided to L C M C , M s. M elen d rez rep li ed , “It’s j u st m o re conveni entform e t o have a s epar at e r el eas e that[appl i cant s ] s i gn s o thatI can ju st s e n d it i n ste a d o f h a v in g to c o p yth is p a rt o f th e ir a p p lica tio n .” A p lee . S u p p l. A pp. at49. A l though s he ac know l edged thatthe good- fai th r el eas e w as “t o be us ed t o obt ai n i nform at i on fr om otherfac i l i t i es , ” i d. , s he mai nt ai ned thats he has al s o us ed the R el eas e and I m m uni tyt o do s o as w el l . C ons trui ng thi s t es t i m ony in th e lig h t m o st fa v o ra b le to D iM a rc o , w e fa il t o se e h o w it d e m o n stra tes h is i n t e n tt o l i mi tP r e s b yt e r i a n ’ s i mmu n i ty , o rh i s i n t e n tn o tt o b e b o u n d b yth e t e r ms-7-

of the R el eas e and I m m uni ty . H i s ar gum enti gnor es the pl ai n pr ovi s i ons of that c o n tra c t, as w e ll as N e w M e x ico ’s la w g ra n tin g e m p lo y e rs a b so lu te im m u n ity w h e re a n e m p lo y e e c o n s e n ts to th e d is c lo s u re o f h is e m p lo ym e n t in fo rm a tio n . A ccor di ngl y , w e conc l ude thatbys i gni ng the R el eas e and I m m uni ty , D i M ar co g ra n ted P re sb yter ian a b so lu te im m u n ityfo r a ll d isc lo su re s c o n c e rn in g h is e m p l o ym e n th i s t o r y. B. N everthel es s , D i M ar co cha l l enges t he di s tr i ctcourt ’ s s um m aryj udgm ent rul i ng byar gui ng thatthe courtr el i ed on s uper s eded a uthor i ty . H e ar gues t hat B akerv. B haj an , 8 7 1 P .2 d 3 7 4 (N .M . 1 9 9 4 ), w h ich w a s c ited b yth e d istric t co u rt, w a s e ffe c tiv e ly o v e rr u le d b yN e w M e x ic o ’s e m p lo y e r i m m u n ity sta tu te , N .M . S tat. § 5 0 -1 2 -1 . T o su p p o rt th is p ro p o sitio n , h e p o in ts o u t th a t N .M . S tat. § 50- 12- 1 w as enac t ed i n t he l egi s l at i ve s es s i on fol l ow i ng B aker , demonstr at i ng thatN ew M exi co’ s l egi s l atur e i nt ended t o overrul e thatdeci s i on. N . M . S tat . § 5 0 -12 -1 is the s tatu toryem b o d im en t of N ew M ex ico’s c o m m o n -l a w q u a lifie d p ri v ile g e th a t a tta c h e s to g o o d -fa ith d is c lo s u re s . See D a v is v. B d. of C ou nty C om m ’rs , 987 P. 2d 1172, 1182 ( N . M . C t . A pp. 1999) ( “The sta tu te w o u ld a p p e a r to tra c k m u c h o f th e c o m m o n -la w p riv ileg e re latin g to d e fa m a tio n a n d g o o d -fa ith c o m m e n ts in th e e m p lo ym e n t co n tex t.”); see also L aw rence L . S um m ers , Wrong f ul D ischarge : C on tract, P ub l i c P oli cy, an d Tort Cla i ms , 663 PL I / L i t9, 110- 11 ( 2001) ( ci t i ng bot h N . M . St at . § 50- 12- 1 and B aker-8-

t o expl ai n t hat“manys t at es have e nact ed l egi s l at i on t o s hi el d empl oy er s fr om s t at ement s m ade i n empl oy ee r efe r ence s , ” but“a s i gned r el eas e ac t s as a cons ent to sta tem e n ts m a d e to p ro sp e c tiv e e m p lo y e rs a n d h o ld s th e m a b so lu tely pri vil eged ”). T he st atute pr ov i des: W hen r eques t ed t o pr ovi de a r efe r ence on a form erorcurr ent e m p lo y e e , an e m p lo y e r a c tin g in g o o d fa ith is im m u n e f ro m liab ili ty forcomm ent s aboutt he form erempl oy ee’ s j ob per form ance . T he i m m uni tys hal l notappl yw hen the r efe r ence i nform at i on s uppl i ed w a s k n o w in g lyfa lse o r d e lib e ra telym isle a d in g , w a s re n d e re d w ith m al i ci ous purpos e orvi ol at ed anyci vi l r i ght s of the form er empl oy ee. N .M . S ta t. § 5 0 -1 2 -1 . A s D i M ar co corr ect l ypoi nt s out , N . M . St at . § 50- 12- 1 w as enac t ed i n 1995, o n e y ea r af

ter B akerw a s d e c id e d . B u t n o th in g in th e lan g u a g e o f th e sta tu te i ndi cat es thati tw as i nt ended t o overrul e B akero r its ru le th a t ab so lu te im m u n ity att ache s w hen the part i es s o contr act . “A s t atut e w i l l be i nt erpr et ed as s uppl ant i ng t he comm on l aw onl yi f ther e i s an expl i ci ti ndi cat i on t hatthe l egi s l atur e s o i nt ended. ” S i ms v . S i ms , 930 P. 2d 153, 158 ( N . M . 1996) ( ci t at i on om i t t ed) . G i ven the abs ence of anys uch i ndi cat i on, w e dec l i ne t o di vi ne a l egi s l at i ve i nt entt o overrul e B aker . C. D i M ar co al s o cont ends Pr es byt er i an vi ol at ed the i m pl i ed cove nantof good fa ith a n d fa ird e a lin g b yd e lib e ra te ly d is c lo s in g fa ls e a n d m is le a d in g in fo rm a tio n . “G ener al l y , i n t he abs ence of an e xpr es s pr ovi s i on on the s ubj ect , a contr act-9-

cont ai ns an i m pl i ed cove nantof good fa i th and fa i rdeal i ng betw een the part i es . ” Kr opi nak v. A R A Heal th Ser vs . , Inc. , 33 P. 3d 679, 681 ( N . M . C t . A pp. 2001) ( ci t at i ons om i t t ed) . B utan i m pl i ed cove nantof good fa i th and fa i rdeal i ng cannot o v e rr id e th e e x p re s s p ro v is io n s o f a c o n tr a c t. Me ln ickv . S ta te Fa rm Mu t. A u to Ins . C o. , 74 9 P . 2d 11 05 , 11 09 -10 (N . M . 19 88 ). H ere, D i M arco si gn ed a rel ease ext endi ng abs ol ut e i m m uni tyt o thi r d par t i es s uch as Pr es byt er i an forany di s cl os ur es , and the i m pl i ed cove nantof good fa i th and fa i rdeal i ng cannot c o u n ter a c t th o se e x p re ss ter m s. A d d iti o n a lly , the c o v e n a n t is “ b re a c h e d o n ly w h e n a p a rtyse e k s to p re v e n t th e c o n tra c t’s p e rfo rm a n c e o r to w ith h o ld its b e n e fits f

ro m th e o th e r p a rt y .” A z arv. P r udent i alIns . C o. of A m er i ca , 68 P. 3d 9 0 9 , 9 2 5 (N .M . C t. A p p . 2 0 0 3 ). A s D iM a rc o a d m its, P re sb yter ian “ w a s n o t a p a rtyto a n yo f

th e re lea se s.” A p lt. B r. at 9 . C o n se q u e n tly , itc a n n o t b e sa id to h a v e v i o l a t e d a n i m p l i e d c o v e n a n to f a c o n tr a c tt o w h i c h i tw a s n o ta p a r ty. D. Fi nal l y , D i M ar co ar gues thatPr es byt er i an pos s es s ed no more t han a c o n d iti o n a l p riv ileg e , w h ich it l o st b ym a k in g fa lse d isc lo su re s. T h is a rg u m e n t is for ecl os ed, how ever , beca us e w e have al r eadyconcl uded thatPr es byt er i an e nj o ye d a b s o l u t e i m m u n i ty.-10- I I I . C oncl usi on T h e j u d g me n to f

th e d i s tr i c tc o u r ti s AF F I RMED . E n tered fo r th e C o u rt M ich a e l W . M c C o n n e ll C i r cui tJ udge