Law and psychiatry: Liability for forensic evaluations: a word of caution.

Abstract

undergo a psychiatric evaluation by an expert, Dr. Miller, who had been retained by the insurer. After performing the examination that was ordered by the court, Dr. Miller drafted a report for the insurer and later testified in a videotaped deposition prepared for use at trial. Before the trial could be held, Ms. Dalton and the insurance company reached a settlement, and Dr. Miller’s testimony was never heard. However, Ms. Dalton then filed another suit, this time against Dr. Miller, alleging irregularities in his conduct of the psychiatric examination and discrepancies between his written report for the insurance company and the testimony he provided in his deposition. Among her many claims, Ms. Dalton alleged misrepresentation and deceit, invasion of privacy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, abuse of process, and civil conspiracy, all of which allegedly compromised her legal case and caused her significant distress. The trial court that was assigned to hear these claims granted Dr. Miller’s motion to dismiss the case on the grounds that he was entitled to “quasi-judicial immunity” for his actions in connection with the psychiatric evaluation. Quasi-judicial immunity derives from the common law, which, as the U.S. Supreme Court noted, “provided absolute immunity from subsequent damages liability for all persons—governmental or otherwise—