Opinion ID: 1379151
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Did the Superior Court Err in Granting Summary Judgment to the Doctors?

Text: In its preadjudication order issued after the October custody review hearing, the CINA court adopted DFYS's case plan. The case plan called for mental health evaluations of C.L., Karen, and K.L. The order stated that the case plan was in C.L.'s best interests, and recognized that it would evolve, noting that full development of such a plan must await outcome of assessments. Pursuant to the order, DFYS arranged for Drs. Rose and McCarthy to evaluate the family members. The CINA court relied heavily on these evaluations during the December hearing, when it found that an inpatient psychiatric evaluation of C.L. was unnecessary. The superior court granted the doctors' motion for summary judgment, concluding that they were entitled to absolute quasi-judicial immunity because their evaluations were integral to the judicial process. Karen argues that the superior court misapplied the doctrine of quasi-judicial immunity to shield the doctors. She contends that the doctrine only applies to services specifically ordered by the court. The doctors correctly argue that our decision in Lythgoe v. Guinn, 884 P.2d 1085 (Alaska 1994), is controlling. We there held that a court-appointed psychologist was entitled to quasi-judicial immunity for claims arising out of her services as an independent custody investigator. Id. at 1088-89. Although the psychologist in Lythgoe was court-appointed, it is irrelevant that Drs. McCarthy and Rose were initially selected by DFYS and subsequently approved by the court. We have recognized that it is not `how the psychologist was first chosen but whether his activity is an integral part of the judicial process so that to deny immunity would disserve the broader public interest that non-judicial officers act without fear of liability.' Lythgoe, 884 P.2d at 1088 (quoting Lavit v. Superior Court, 173 Ariz. 96, 839 P.2d 1141, 1144 (Ariz. App. 1992) (holding that psychologist initially chosen by the parties without court involvement was entitled to judicial immunity)). [11] The superior court did not err in granting summary judgment to the doctors.