Seibel v. Kemble

• Decision Date: 13 July 1981
• Docket Number: No. 6546,6546
• Parties: Katherine G. SEIBEL and Mason E. Seibel, and Mason E. Seibel as Administrator of the Estate of Barbara Kathleen Seibel, Deceased, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Robert Day KEMBLE, Defendant-Appellee, Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant. Darius H. AMJADI and Kwong Yen Lum, Defendants-Appellees, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, Third-Party Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: Hawaii Supreme Court

Page 173

631 P.2d 173

63 Haw. 516

Katherine G. SEIBEL and Mason E. Seibel, and Mason E. Seibel

as Administrator of the Estate of Barbara Kathleen

Seibel, Deceased, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Robert Day KEMBLE, Defendant-Appellee, Third-Party

Plaintiff-Appellant.

Darius H. AMJADI and Kwong Yen Lum, Defendants-Appellees, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, Third-Party Defendant-Appellee.

No. 6546.

Supreme Court of Hawai'i July 13, 1981.

Syllabus by the Court

1. Where psychiatrists had been appointed and were acting as arms of the court in rendering an opinion on a criminal defendant's competency, responsibility and subsequent disposition, the court-appointed psychiatrists were protected from suit by the absolute judicial immunity extended to judges and other judicial officials.

2. Court-appointed psychiatrists who were protected from suit by absolute judicial immunity, could not be held liable for the death of an innocent third party resulting from the psychiatrists' alleged negligent examination and diagnoses and failure to abide by the appointing order.

3. The reasons underlying judicial immunity, especially the freedom and independence to act without apprehension of possible adverse consequences apply equally to court-appointed psychiatrists.

Allan Haley, Honolulu (Paul F. Cronin, L. Richard Fried, Jr., and Evelyn B. Lance Honolulu, on the briefs; Cronin, Fried, Sekiya, Haley & Kekina, Honolulu, of counsel), for plaintiffs-appellants.

John S. Edmunds, Honolulu, for defendant-appellee, third-party plaintiff- appellant Kemble (Cades, Schutte, Fleming & Wright, Honolulu, of counsel).

Stephen B. MacDonald, Honolulu, for defendant-appellee Amjadi.

Albert Gould, Honolulu (Gould & McKenzie, Honolulu, of counsel), for defendant-appellee Lum.

Stanley Young, Deputy Corp. Counsel, Honolulu (James E. Ross, Deputy Corp. Counsel, Honolulu, on the brief), for third-party defendant-appellee, City and County of Honolulu.

Before RICHARDSON, C. J., and OGATA, MENOR, LUM and NAKAMURA, JJ.

OGATA, Justice.

This is an appeal brought by plaintiffs-appellants, Katherine G. Seibel and Mason E. Seibel, and Mason E. Seibel as administrator of the Estate of Barbara Kathleen Seibel, deceased (hereinafter appellants), from an order of the Circuit Court of the First Circuit granting summary judgment for defendants-appellees, Robert D. Kemble, Darius H. Amjadi and Kwong Yen Lum (hereinafter appellees). In addition, appellee Kemble appeals the dismissal of his third-party complaint filed against the City and County of Honolulu (hereinafter City). We are asked to consider (1) whether appellees are entitled to immunity from civil suit for consequences resulting from the manner of executing their court appointment to examine and render a psychiatric opinion regarding the penal responsibility of Paul Abraham Luiz (hereinafter Luiz), and (2) whether the dismissal of the third-party complaint was proper. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the orders granting summary judgment for appellees and dismissing the third-party complaint against the City.

I.

In early 1973, Luiz was charged with rape, sodomy and kidnapping of four separate complainants in Criminal Nos. 45405 and 45406. Shortly thereafter, while these charges were pending, Luiz began weekly treatment sessions with appellee Kemble. On September 11, 1973, by an order of the court, appellees, who are licensed physicians in this state specializing in psychiatry, were appointed to serve on a sanity commission pursuant to HRS § 704-404. ¹ The court order provided that appellees were to examine Luiz and report to the court the following: a description of the nature of the examination; a diagnosis of Luiz's mental condition including a description of his psychological process, predisposition to psychiatric illness and the severity and stress that will precipitate these illnesses; any psychiatric data regarding Luiz's past history, mental or physical, and Luiz's views on the events leading up to the crime and his arrest; an opinion on his capacity to understand the proceedings against him and to assist in his own defense; an opinion on whether Luiz had the capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law at the time of the offense; the effect of Luiz's mental or physical disease, disorder or defect on his capacity to understand the wrongfulness of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law; an opinion on whether Luiz had the capacity to form the requisite intent for the crimes charged; an opinion regarding the disposition of Luiz if he lacks the capacity to understand the proceedings against him or to assist in his own defense; and an opinion regarding the disposition of Luiz if he is insane or suffering from mental disease, disorder or defect, and whether he is a danger to himself or to others and his present physical and mental condition.

The report of the sanity commission was submitted to the court on January 4, 1974. The appellees found that Luiz was suffering from " 'compulsive neurosis', with an associated and predisposing diagnosis of 'passive aggressive personality', as defined in D.S.M. II of the American Psychiatric Association." Despite this mental illness, appellees concluded that with continued treatment, it was unlikely that Luiz would be a danger to himself or to others. After numerous and extensive hearings, a judgment of acquittal on the ground of physical or mental disease, disorder or defect excluding responsibility was entered by the court on August 1, 1974, in Criminal Nos. 45405 and 45406. ² Pursuant to its authority under HRS § 704-411, the court ordered Luiz released upon the condition that Luiz continue treatment with appellee Kemble. ³ About ten months later, Luiz killed Barbara Kathleen Seibel. ⁴

Appellants seek damages from appellees for their negligent examination and diagnoses and failure to abide by the court order appointing them which permitted Luiz to be conditionally released by the circuit court. It is asserted that this negligence caused the death of Barbara Seibel on May 28, 1975.

Appellants specifically alleged in their complaint that appellees failed to exercise reasonable care in the manner of conducting their examinations and making their diagnoses which were incorrect and inadequate; that appellees negligently failed to use auxiliary services available to them in conducting their examination and substantiating their report as ordered by the court; that appellees were grossly negligent in finding that Luiz suffered from a severe case of compulsive neurosis but nevertheless concluded that with continued treatment Luiz would not likely be a danger to himself or to others; that appellees Lum and Amjadi failed to make adequate examinations using all available resources and failed to make an independent evaluation of Luiz's condition and dangerousness by relying substantially on appellee Kemble's opinion; that appellees undertook a duty to conduct their examination and make their report with due care knowing that the failure to exercise such care might result in danger to Luiz or others in the community. It was further alleged that as a direct and proximate result of appellees' failure of due care in conducting their examination and making their report, Luiz was free to and did kill Barbara Kathleen Seibel.

Appellee Kemble then filed a third-party complaint against the City and County of Honolulu for the City's failure to disclose to the court and appellee Kemble subsequent bad acts committed by Luiz. Specifically, appellee Kemble alleged that the City, through its agent the prosecuting attorney, was negligent in failing to inform the court or appellee Kemble of a sexual attack committed by Luiz on another woman twenty-five days after being conditionally released.

II.

There is much uncertainty in the diagnosis and treatment of mental illness and in the prediction of future behavior. ⁵ As the court stated in Hicks v. United States, 511 F.2d 407, 415 (D.C.Cir.1975):

A claim of negligence must be considered in light of the elusive qualities of mental disorders and the difficulty of analyzing and evaluating them. Exactitude is often impossible. The Supreme Court has recently noted "the uncertainty of diagnosis in this field and the tentativeness of professional judgment." Error and uncertainty considered alone must often be accepted without labeling them negligence. (Citations omitted.)

We must consider appellants' allegations in light of the elusive qualities of mental health diagnosis and treatment.

We must also evaluate appellants' allegations in light of the goal of treatment, recovery and rehabilitation of those afflicted with a mental disease, defect or disorder. A consequence of imposing liability on a doctor was recognized by the court in Taig v. State, 19 App.Div.2d 182, 241 N.Y.S.2d 495, 496-97 (1963), which stated: "If a liability were imposed on the physician or the State each time the prediction of future course of mental disease was wrong, few releases would ever be made and the hope of recovery and rehabilitation of a vast number of patients would be impeded and frustrated."

In recognizing these concerns and the possibility of error, the concept of immunity has been applied to the mental health field. Under the immunity doctrine, it is implicitly recognized that there will be error made but "it is better to risk some error and possible injury from such error than not to decide or act at all." Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 242, 94 S.Ct. 1683, 1689, 40 L.Ed.2d 90 (1974).

We have examined the question of immunity previously and held that judges are absolutely immune from suit for their judicial actions. State v. Taylor, 49 Haw. 624, 425 P.2d 1014 (1967); Gomez v. Whitney, 21 Haw. 539 (1913). Legislators also have been accorded absolute immunity for actions taken within the scope of their duties. Abercrombie v. McClung, 55 Haw....