Simmons v. Campion

• Decision Date: 25 June 2013
• Docket Number: No. 3–12–0562.,3–12–0562.
• Citation: Simmons v. Campion, 2013 IL App (3d) 120562, 991 N.E. 2d 924, 372 Ill.Dec. 434 (Ill. App. 2013)
• Parties: Greg SIMMONS, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. Michael A. CAMPION, and Campion, Barrow and Associates, Defendants–Appellees.
• Court: Appellate Court of Illinois

2013 IL App (3d) 120562

991 N.E.2d 924

372 Ill.Dec. 434

Greg SIMMONS, Plaintiff–Appellant,

v.Michael A. CAMPION, and Campion, Barrow and Associates, Defendants–Appellees.

No. 3–12–0562.

Appellate Court of Illinois, Third District.

June 25, 2013.

Shane M. Voyles (argued), Policemen's Benevolent Labor Committee, Springfield, for appellant.

Robert Marc Chemers, Scott L. Anderson, Philip G. Brandt (argued), Stephen C. Veltman, Pretzel & Stouffer, Chtrd., Chicago, for appellees.

OPINION

Justice CARTER delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

[372 Ill.Dec. 436]¶ 1 In 2008, the plaintiff, Greg Simmons, filed a civil complaint against the defendants, Dr. Michael Campion and Campion, Barrow & Associates, in regard to a psychological evaluation that Dr. Campion performed on the plaintiff in 2006. In January 2012, the plaintiff was allowed to file a third amended complaint. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which the circuit court granted after a hearing. On appeal, the plaintiff argues that the court erred when it dismissed the complaint pursuant to section 2–615 of the Code of Civil Procedure (the Code) (735 ILCS 5/2–615 (West 2010)) and section 2–619 of the Code (735 ILCS 5/2–619 (West 2010)). We affirm.

¶ 2 FACTS

¶ 3 The city of Pekin hired the plaintiff as a police officer in 1995. In March 2006, the Pekin police chief ordered the plaintiff to submit to a psychological evaluation. Defendant Dr. Michael Campion, a psychologist, performed the evaluation at his place of business on March 23, 2006, where the plaintiff signed a form stating that he understood the process and that contained the following paragraph:

“It is important to remember that the testing experience IS NOT confidential in that, in most cases, an agency, physician, insurance company, or attorney has requested a report. You should have been informed of this prior to your participation in this process. However, if you have not been informed, please feel free to discuss this with Dr. Campion or a staff member. You will be asked to sign a Release of Information that will designate to whom the report will be sent.” (Emphasis in original.)

The next day, the police department informed the plaintiff that he had been found unfit for duty and that he was prohibited from entering the police department.

¶ 4 On March 28, 2006, the plaintiff signed a form that stated he agreed the defendants could release the results of the psychological evaluation to the police chief or his designee. The form also stated that the plaintiff retained his right to confidentiality and other rights available to him under the Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities Confidentiality Act (the Act) (740 ILCS 110/1 et seq. (West 2006)). On March 30, 2006, the plaintiff signed another form in which he agreed to allow the defendants to release the results of the psychological evaluation to the police chief and the Pekin police department.

¶ 5 Dr. Campion's written report was issued in mid-April 2006. In that report, Dr. Campion opined that the plaintiff suffered from a personality disorder, which included narcissistic, aggressive, and paranoid features. Dr. Campion recommended that the plaintiff undergo biweekly therapy with a licensed psychologist for a period of 12 months and that he submit to a psychiatric evaluation. In early May 2006, the Pekin police department ordered the plaintiff to comply with Dr. Campion's recommendations and to have his therapist report his progress to Dr. Campion.

[372 Ill.Dec. 437]¶ 6 The plaintiff obtained three independent psychological evaluations between May and November 2006; all three psychologists disagreed with Dr. Campion's diagnoses and recommendations.

¶ 7 Based on Dr. Campion's finding that the plaintiff was not fit for duty, the plaintiff was not allowed to work for the Pekin police department between late March 2006 and September 2008.

¶ 8 The plaintiff initiated the instant case in 2008 when he filed a civil complaint against the defendants in which he alleged professional negligence in connection with the March 2006 psychological evaluation. The plaintiff was allowed to amend the complaint twice. The second amended complaint listed four causes of action: (1) professional negligence; (2) fraudulent misrepresentation; (3) negligent misrepresentation; and (4) an action for damages under section 15 of the Act (740 ILCS 110/15 (West 2006)).

¶ 9 On December 7, 2011, the circuit court held a hearing on the defendants' combined motion for summary judgment and to dismiss. After the hearing, the court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on count I and granted dismissal without prejudice pursuant to section 2–615 of the Code on counts II, III, and IV. The court also gave the plaintiff time to file an amended complaint.

¶ 10 On January 4, 2012, the plaintiff filed a third amended complaint in which he listed four causes of action: (1) an action for damages under section 15 of the Act; (2) tortious interference with a contractual or business relationship; (3) fraudulent misrepresentation; and (4) negligent misrepresentation. In the first cause of action, the plaintiff alleged that the defendants provided “mental health services” to the plaintiff as defined by the Act and then disclosed confidential mental health information in violation of the Act. In the second cause of action, the plaintiff alleged that the defendants' disclosures interfered with the plaintiff's contractual employment agreement with the Pekin police department. In the third cause of action, the plaintiff alleged that the defendants misrepresented the plaintiff's mental health to the Pekin police department or at least commented on the plaintiff's mental health without knowing whether those comments were true. The plaintiff's fourth cause of action was an alternative theory to the third cause of action and alleged that the defendants negligently misrepresented the plaintiff's mental health to the Pekin police department.

¶ 11 Among the facts alleged in the complaint were several statements regarding Dr. Campion's opinion of the danger posed by the plaintiff: (1) “Defendants told administrators at the Pekin Police Department that it ‘should take usual and customary procedures to deal with the possibility of aggressive acting out behavior by Officer Simmons' ” (emphasis omitted); (2) “Defendants told administrators at the Pekin Police Department that ‘There are some indications from his testing that [the plaintiff's] resentment may mount into periods of manic excitement or into acts of brutal hostility’ ”; (3) the plaintiff “may exhibit a readiness to attack those he distrusts”; (4) the plaintiff “ ‘tries to outwit others by controlling and exploiting them before they can control and exploit him’ ”; and (5) “Defendant labeled Plaintiff with the DSM–IV Axis II diagnosis of 301.9, ‘Personality Disorder NOS (With Narcissist, Aggressive, and Paranoid Personality Features).’ ”

¶ 12 In response to the plaintiff's third amended complaint, the defendants filed a combined motion to dismiss pursuant to sections 2–615 and 2–619 of the Code (735 ILCS 5/2–615, 2–619 (West 2010)). Among the exhibits attached to the motion was an affidavit from Dr. Campion in which he stated that the disclosure of the fitness-for-duty evaluation was made not only with the plaintiff's consent, but also “in good faith to otherwise protect another person against a clear, imminent risk of serious physical or mental injury or disease or death being inflicted by the recipient on another.” Also included in the exhibits was the plaintiff's deposition testimony in which the plaintiff stated, inter alia, that he knew he was going to see Dr. Campion for a fitness-for-duty evaluation after being ordered to do so by the chief.

¶ 13 On June 18, 2012, the circuit court issued a written order in which it granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the third amended complaint. In so ruling, the court found, inter alia, that the plaintiff could not have reasonably expected nor relied upon any confidentiality claim with regard to the evaluation. The court also found that the plaintiff could not plead or establish any duty owed to him by the defendants, as there was no therapeutic relationship between the plaintiff and Dr. Campion under the Act or any other legal standard. The court also noted that the plaintiff signed a form that stated the evaluation was not confidential and the report would be sent to individuals designated by the plaintiff in a release of information form.

¶ 14 The court also found that even if confidentiality applied, section 11(ii) of the Act would immunize the defendants from liability for the disclosure. The court stated that Dr. Campion's disclosure was intended to protect the public from an officer who had been found unfit for duty, and “[s]uch judgment call is within the sole discretion of the mental health professional and, as pointed out by the defense, the Plaintiff offers no counter-affidavit or evidence to suggest bad faith in so communicating his findings.”

¶ 15 The court ruled that the plaintiff's complaint failed to state any cause of action and was therefore subject to dismissal under section 2–615 of the Code. The court also found that the complaint was subject to dismissal under section 2–619(a)(9) of the Code (735 ILCS 5/2–619(a)(9) (West 2010)) because the defendants had established affirmative matters to defeat the plaintiff's causes of action. Accordingly, the court dismissed the complaint with prejudice.

¶ 16 The plaintiff filed a notice of appeal from the circuit court's rulings of December 7, 2011, and June 18, 2012.

¶ 17 ANALYSIS

¶ 18 Before we address the plaintiff's arguments, we will first address a motion that the defendants filed with this court that asks us to dismiss the plaintiff's appeal from the circuit court's ruling of December 7, 2011. In part, that ruling granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on the plaintiff's...