Block v. Sacramento Clinical Labs, Inc.

• Decision Date: 30 April 1982
• Citation: 182 Cal.Rptr. 438,131 Cal.App.3d 386
• Parties: Debra BLOCK, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. SACRAMENTO CLINICAL LABS, INC., and Raymond Beam, Defendants and Respondents. Civ. 20748.
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Page 438

182 Cal.Rptr. 438

131 Cal.App.3d 386

Debra BLOCK, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. SACRAMENTO CLINICAL LABS, INC., and Raymond Beam, Defendants and Respondents.

Civ. 20748.

Court of Appeal, Third District, California.

April 30, 1982.

Hearing Denied June 23, 1982.

Van Dyke, Shaw & Schuckman and William A. Schuckman, Stockton, for plaintiff and appellant.

Diehl, Steinheimer, Riggio, Haydel & Mordaunt and Peter Kelly, Stockton, for defendants and respondents.

BLEASE, Associate Justice.

In this appeal we determine that an action for professional negligence may be defeated because liability is predicated upon the publication of an injurious falsehood, consisting of the communication of a negligently prepared report to the district attorney for purposes of criminal action, which is absolutely privileged under Civil Code section 47, subdivision 2. We affirm the judgment.

FACTS

In December 1977, plaintiff's infant daughter died. An autopsy was performed. As part of its investigation into the cause of death, the San Joaquin County Sheriff-Coroner's office submitted samples of the baby's blood to defendant Beam. ¹ Beam, a toxicologist, performed a blood analysis and determined the child had a blood salicylate concentration of 670 miligrams per liter of blood. ² Because a salicylate concentration of 300 miligrams per liter of blood can be toxic, the San Joaquin County District Attorney's office sought further information to determine whether criminal charges might be warranted. Beam was requested to calculate the number of baby aspirin which plaintiff's child would have had to ingest to produce such a high concentration of salicylate in the baby's bloodstream. He performed the calculations and communicated them to the district attorney's office which used them as grounds for filing criminal murder and child neglect charges against plaintiff.

A preliminary hearing was held and Beam was subpoenaed by the People to testify as to the number of baby aspirin in the baby's bloodstream at the time of death. At the hearing, it was discovered Beam had erred in his calculations, overstating the number of aspirin ingested by the child. Thereafter, the criminal complaint was dismissed on the People's motion.

Plaintiff then filed this action, labeling the complaint as one for "professional negligence." Beam moved for summary judgment, asserting the privileges of Civil Code section 47, subdivisions 2 and 3. ³ The trial court held the communication subject to the qualified privilege of Civil Code section 47, subdivision 3, but not the absolute privilege of Civil Code section 47, subdivision 2. Plaintiff appeals.

DISCUSSION

The privileges of Civil Code section 47, unlike evidentiary privileges which function by the exclusion of evidence (see Evid. Code, § 900 et seq.), operate as limitations upon liability. Section 47 was enacted in 1872 as part of a statutory scheme which defines defamation, in part, as a "false and unprivileged publication. " (Emphasis added.) (Civ.Code, §§ 45 [libel] and 46 [slander].) The definition of "privileged publication" in section 47 provides, by negative implication, criteria for the tort. (See Dixon v. Allen (1886) 69 Cal. 527, 11 P. 179.) The assertion of the privilege as a defense is thus a direct challenge to liability. (See 1 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law (6th ed. 1946) § 94, pp. 679-680; Snively v. Record Publishing Co. (1921) 185 Cal. 565, 574, 198 P. 1; Reid v. Thomas (1929) 99 Cal.App. 719, 721, 279 P. 226.) This conceptual symmetry has been maintained to this day.

The defense of privilege was limited to defamation actions ⁴ until Albertson v. Raboff (1956) 46 Cal.2d 375, 295 P.2d 405. There section 47, subdivision 2, was applied to defeat an action for disparagement of title arising out of a notice of lis pendens. The court analyzed the action as founded upon the republication of alleged falsehoods contained in pleadings already on file. It said: "The publication of the pleadings is unquestionably clothed with absolute privilege, and we have concluded that the republication thereof by recording a notice of lis pendens is similarly privileged." (Id., at p. 379, 295 P.2d 405.)

The court deftly made the transition from defamation to disparagement of title. Although recognizing that actions for disparagement of title are (in some ways) different from that of personal defamation, the court linked the disparagement of title action to the statutory privilege in Civil Code section 47 through the medium of the common law. The court said: "[S]ubstantially the same privileges are recognized in relation to both torts in the absence of statute. (See Rest., Torts, §§ 585 et seq., 635 et seq.; Prosser, Torts, 2d ed. 767.) Questions of privilege relating to both torts are now resolved in the light of section 47 of the Civil Code." (46 Cal.2d at pp. 378-379, 295 P.2d 405.) The court thus conceptually linked the actionable wrong made the basis of the tort to the speech acts made the subject of the privilege in the same way that the privilege relates to speech acts in defamation actions.

The provisions contained in the citations to the Restatement and Prosser discuss a variety of torts, the common substance of which is an injurious falsehood ⁵, which the common law makes privileged if published in judicial or other protected proceedings. In relying upon them, the court thereby extended the privileges of section 47, either directly or by analogy, ⁶ to torts predicated upon an injurious falsehood, however labeled, arising in or related to a privileged proceeding. It implicitly embraced the principle presently summarized in the Restatement Second, section 635, comment a: "The circumstances under which there is an absolute privilege to publish an injurious falsehood are in all respects the same as those under which there is an absolute privilege to publish matter that is personally defamatory. In other words, whenever there is a privilege to publish statements that are both false and defamatory, there must be a privilege to publish those that are false but not defamatory." (See also Rest.2d Torts, § 623 et seq.; Prosser, Torts (4th ed. 1971) § 128, p. 915 et seq., especially pp. 924-926; 4 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law (8th ed. 1974) Torts, § 332, pp. 2597-2598.)

Subsequent cases have applied the privilege to defeat tort actions which, however labeled ⁷ and whatever the theory of liability, ⁸ are predicated upon the publication in protected proceedings of an injurious falsehood. (Thornton v. Rhoden (1966) 245 Cal.App.2d 80, 94, 53 Cal.Rptr. 706 [abuse of process arising out of the giving of notice that a deposition would be taken]; Kachig v. Boothe (1971) 22 Cal.App.3d 626, 99 Cal.Rptr. 393 [infliction of mental distress based on testimony given in a prior lawsuit]; Agostini v. Strycula (1965) 231 Cal.App.2d 804, 42 Cal.Rptr. 314 [inducing breach of an employment contract based on perjured testimony given in a civil service proceeding]; Lerette v. Dean Witter Organization, Inc. (1976) 60 Cal.App.3d 573, 131 Cal.Rptr. 592 [intentional infliction of emotional distress based on a defamatory letter sent in contemplation of a legal action]; Portman v. George McDonald Law Corp. (1979) 99 Cal.App.3d 988, 160 Cal.Rptr. 505 [negligent misrepresentation based upon a false letter intended to induce plaintiff to avoid staying enforcement of a judgment]; Sales Corp. v. Olsen (1978) 80 Cal.App.3d 645, 145 Cal.Rptr. 778 [trade libel predicated upon the pleading in a small claims suit].) (Umansky v. Urquhart (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 368, 148 Cal.Rptr. 547 [abuse of process predicated upon injurious falsehood in a pleading]; Younger v. Solomon (1974) 38 Cal.App.3d 289, 300-301, 113 Cal.Rptr. 113, and Twyford v. Twyford (1976) 63 Cal.App.3d 916, 924-926, 134 Cal.Rptr. 145 [abuse of process predicated upon statements contained in an interrogatory] ⁹; Pettitt v. Levy (1972) 28 Cal.App.3d 484, 104 Cal.Rptr. 650 [fraud, negligent misrepresentation, negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress, predicated upon the submission of false documents to the City of Fresno in connection with quasi-judicial proceedings for a variance]; Scott v. McDonnell Douglas Corp. (1974) 37 Cal.App.3d 277, 112 Cal.Rptr. 609 [privileged letters relating to employee performance read at city council meeting formed basis for allegation of defamation, interference with contractual relationship and intentional infliction of emotional distress].)

But Civil Code section 47, subdivision 2, does not apply to every action in which a privileged communication may provide some element of the tort. Thus, "the fact that 'a communication may be absolutely privileged for the purposes of a defamation action does not prevent its being an element of an action for malicious prosecution in a proper case.' " (Brody v. Montalbano (1978) 87 Cal.App.3d 725, 736, 151 Cal.Rptr. 206, quoting from Albertson v. Raboff, supra, 46 Cal.2d at p. 382, 295 P.2d 405; see also Imig v. Ferrar (1977) 70 Cal.App.3d 48, 57, 138 Cal.Rptr. 540.)

We turn to examine whether plaintiff's theory of liability makes an injurious falsehood the subject of liability.

Plaintiff labels her claim of liability as professional negligence, relying principally upon Brousseau v. Jarrett (1977) 73 Cal.App.3d 864, 141 Cal.Rptr. 200. She makes the negligent communication of an injurious falsehood, a negligent misrepresentation, the actionable wrong. She states: "[R]espondent is liable if his lack of ordinary care caused for[e]seeable injury to the economic interests of appellant. [p] In the case at bar it is impossible that Mr. Beam would believe that the District Attorney would not rely on his tests in determining whether or not to issue a complaint against Ms. Block. [p] It is inconceivable that he did not understand that his testimony at the preliminary examination might be relied upon by the magistrate in determining whether or not Ms. Block should be held to answer. In fact, once Mr....