Title: BURGESS v SILVERGLAT
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 85-170
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: July 30, 1985

No. 8 5 - 1 7 0 ITJ THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1 9 8 5 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 Fourth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , I n and f o r the 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. Wheelis, Judge presiding. COUNSEL OF RECORD: F o r A p p e l l a n t : R i c h a r d B u r g e s s , pro se, D e e r L o d g e , Montana F o r R e s p o n d e n t : G a r l i n g t o n , L o h n & R o b i n s o n , Missoula, Montana S u b m i t t e d on B r i e f s : May 3 0 , 1 9 8 5 D e c i d e d : J u l y 3 0 , 1 9 8 5 C l e r k 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 r n r n u - 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 governmental u n i t s a r e immune from s u i t f o r a c t s o r omissions o f t h e j u d i c i a r y . " (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 lawful d i s c h a r g e o f an o f f i c i a l duty a s s o c i a t e d w i t h j u d i c i a l a c t i o n s o f t h e c o u r t . " (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 District Court found t h a t i n s u b m i t t i n g t h e psychi- a t r i c r e p o r t upon which t h i s c l a i m i s based, D r . S i l v e r g l a t a c t e d a s an a g e n t of 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 an agent o f t h e j u d i c i a r y o f t h e S t a t e of Montana. The r e p o r t was prepared a s a p a r t o f t h e lawful d i s c h a r g e of h i s o f f i c i a l d u t i e s and pursuant t o 5 2-9-112, MCA, t h e D i s t r i c t Court 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 contends t h a t t h e r e p o r t was n o t a lawful d i s c h a r g e o f an o f f i c i a l duty because it was f a l s e and fraud- u l e n t . H e maintains t h a t respondent knew t h e information i n t h e r e p o r t was f a l s e and only made t h e s t a t e m e n t s t o mislead t h e c o u r t . 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 w i t h o r f a b r i c a t i n g p h y s i c a l evidence. W e do n o t r e a c h t h e i s s u e o f whether o r n o t D r . S i l v e r g l a t i s provided immunity a s an a g e n t o f t h e judi- c i a r y under S 2-9-112, MCA, because t h e p s y c h i a t r i c r e p o r t was a p r i v i l e g e d communication under 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 proceeding o r i n any o t h e r o f f i c i a l proceeding authorized by law . . ." (emphasis added) One r e q u i s i t e o f a defamation a c t i o n i s t h a t t h e communication must n o t be 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 i s p r i v i l e g e d and c a n n o t be t h e s u b j e c t o f a defamation a c t i o n . Skinner v. P i s t o r i a (Mont. 1 9 8 1 ) , 633 P.2d 672, 38 St.Rep. 1501. C l e a r l y , D r . S i l v e r g l a t ' s r e p o r t w a s made a s p a r t of a j u d i c i a l p r o c e e d i n g and i s p r o t e c t e d from t h i s a c t i o n . S k i n n e r goes on t o state 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 by 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 were 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 Court o r d e r .