Snow v. Koeppl

• Decision Date: 06 November 1990
• Docket Number: No. 90-0692,90-0692
• Citation: 159 Wis.2d 77,464 N.W.2d 215
• Parties: Terri Sue SNOW, Plaintiff-Appellant, d v. Gina KOEPPL and American Home Assurance Company, Defendants-Respondents, Northern Wisconsin Psychological Associates, Defendant.
• Court: Wisconsin Court of Appeals

Page 215

464 N.W.2d 215

159 Wis.2d 77

Terri Sue SNOW, Plaintiff-Appellant, ^d v. Gina KOEPPL and American Home Assurance Company,

Defendants-Respondents,

Northern Wisconsin Psychological Associates, Defendant.

No. 90-0692.

Court of Appeals of Wisconsin.

Submitted on Briefs Oct. 8, 1990.

Opinion Released Nov. 6, 1990.

Opinion Filed Nov. 6, 1990.

H. Stanley Riffle and Eric O. Schlieter of Arenz, Molter, Macy & Riffle, S.C., Waukesha, for plaintiff-appellant.

Stephen P. Juech and Tamara A. Hayes of Frisch & Dudek, Ltd., Milwaukee, for defendants-respondents.

Before CANE, P.J., and LaROCQUE and MYSE, JJ.

LaROCQUE, Judge.

Terri Sue Snow appeals a summary judgment dismissing her claims for breach of confidentiality and invasion of privacy against Dr. Gina Koeppl, a Rhinelander psychologist and her insurer, American Home Assurance Company. Koeppl, in the course of preparing a court-ordered psychological evaluation of Snow for use in a family court action, obtained and delivered to the court excerpts from earlier counseling records of the Northern Wisconsin Psychological Associates (hereafter "the clinic"), Koeppl's place of employment and a division of the Rhinelander Medical Center, Inc.

The circuit court dismissed Snow's claims on grounds that Koeppl was immune from liability as a quasi-judicial officer and court-appointed expert witness. There remains pending in the trial court a claim against the clinic alleging negligent failure to protect the confidentiality of the records involved. We affirm the summary judgment.

Snow originally engaged in therapy sessions in 1984 and 1985 with Robert Stensberg, ACSW, another clinic associate, and detailed records were compiled and maintained. Then, in 1988, Snow was a party in a family court action wherein her ex-husband sought visitation rights with the couple's two minor children. The trial judge in that action met with the parties, neither of whom was represented by legal counsel, and verbally ordered the entire family to undergo psychological evaluation. ¹ The court advised Koeppl of the order via telephone. The order and its exact provisions were never recorded or reduced to writing.

At the time the evaluation was ordered, neither the court nor Koeppl was aware of the prior treatment and records. In the course of her task, Koeppl learned of Snow's previous counseling sessions. Koeppl examined the clinic files and incorporated some information from them in her report to the court. Thereafter, the court permitted Snow and her ex-husband to review Koeppl's evaluation and report.

Snow's complaint in this action alleges that Koeppl "revealed and disclosed this information to the general public, without the authorization of the plaintiff," that Koeppl's conduct was negligent, reckless and wanton, violated an implied contract as well as various laws protecting against breach of confidentiality and invasion of privacy, and she sought both compensatory and punitive damages for her injuries.

Koeppl's answer asserts certain denials and defenses including a claim that Koeppl's actions were done with Snow's consent, that the psychologist/patient privilege is inapplicable under circumstances where the actions were taken pursuant to a court order, and finally that the court, not Koeppl, released the information. Because we conclude that a judicial order creating official duties directly and closely connected to court proceedings should be broadly construed in favor of the person required to act, we accord Koeppl absolute immunity.

Summary judgment methodology is governed by sec. 802.08, Stats., and is set forth in detail in many cases, including Grams v. Boss, 97 Wis.2d 332, 338, 294 N.W.2d 473, 476-77 (1980). Statements made in the course of judicial proceedings are absolutely privileged and insulate the speaker from liability so long as the statements "bear a proper relationship to the issues." Bergman v. Hupy, 64 Wis.2d 747, 750, 221 N.W.2d 898, 900 (1974). The rule is traceable to earliest Wisconsin case law. Jennings v. Paine, 4 Wis. 372 (*358) (1855). The rule extends to attorneys, witnesses and physicians appointed to examine a person in connection with judicial proceedings. See Bromund v. Holt, 24 Wis.2d 336, 129 N.W.2d 149 (1964). The Wisconsin rule is in harmony with the general rule throughout this country. Bussewitz v. Wisconsin Teachers' Ass'n, 188 Wis. 121, 124-25, 205 N.W. 808, 810 (1925). The determination whether the statements are pertinent and relevant to the...