Willitzer v. McCloud

• Decision Date: 07 September 1983
• Docket Number: No. 82-1020,82-1020
• Citation: 6 OBR 489,453 N.E.2d 693,6 Ohio St.3d 447
• Parties: , 6 O.B.R. 489 WILLITZER et al., Appellees, v. McCLOUD et al., Appellants.
• Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Page 447

6 Ohio St.3d 447

453 N.E.2d 693, 6 O.B.R. 489

WILLITZER et al., Appellees, v. McCLOUD et al., Appellants.

No. 82-1020.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

Sept. 7, 1983.

Syllabus by the Court

An independent physician examining workers' compensation claimants at the request of the Industrial Commission of Ohio, for the purpose of reporting their medical conditions, is not absolutely immune from a civil suit based on his examinations, notwithstanding that his report and testimony at an adjudicatory proceeding are privileged under the doctrine of witness immunity.

This matter arises from an action filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Lucas County by fourteen workers' compensation claimants ("appellees") against the Industrial Commission of Ohio, three members thereof, and William J. McCloud, M.D. ("appellants"). ¹ Appellees alleged that Dr. McCloud had examined twelve of them; that his examinations had been inadequate and incomplete; and that the reports of these examinations contained intentional misrepresentations resulting in the denial or reduction in their workers' compensation benefits. Hence, they sought judgment against Dr. McCloud for compensatory and punitive damages. Moreover, appellees sought injunctive relief for the purpose of preventing the commission from referring any and all claimants to Dr. McCloud.

Appellants subsequently filed motions for summary judgment, which were granted. The basis of the decision in favor of Dr. McCloud was that the " * * * function being performed by Dr. McCloud in examining the claimants and filing material reports is that of a witness furnishing testimony in an adjudicatory proceeding which entitles him to absolute immunity from civil suit."

Appellees appealed the trial court's decision to the court of appeals. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment entered for the Industrial Commission because the subsequent action of the parties had rendered the issue moot. The appellate court, however, reversed the summary judgment entered for Dr. McCloud. The basis of its decision was that:

" * * * a doctor who has undertaken a duty to examine an individual for the purpose of reporting the medical condition of that individual to an adjudicatory body is liable for any damages resulting from said doctor's failure to conduct a medically adequate examination, notwithstanding that the report thereon is privileged under the doctrine of witness immunity."

The cause is now before this court upon the allowance of motions to certify the record.

Gallon, Kalniz & Iorio Co., L.P.A., Jack Gallon and Tobie Braverman, Toledo, for appellees.

Graham, Dutro & Nemeth, James L. Graham, Columbus, Eastman & Smith and James F. Nooney, Toledo, for appellant McCloud.

Anthony J. Celebrezze, Jr., Atty. Gen., James E. Davidson and Douglas M. Kennedy, Asst. Attys. Gen., for appellant Industrial Com'n.

Porter, Wright, Morris & Arthur, James E. Pohlman and Michael J. Rourke, Columbus, urging reversal for amicus curiae, Ohio State Medical Assn.

Paul T. Key, Columbus, urging reversal for amicus curiae, Ohio Psychological Assn., Inc.

JAMES P. CELEBREZZE, Justice.

The issue presented here is whether an independent physician examining workers' compensation claimants, at the request of the Industrial Commission for the purpose of reporting their medical conditions, is absolutely immune from a civil suit based on his examinations.

In arguing for absolute immunity from civil suit, Dr. McCloud claims that his function of examining the claimants and filing medical reports is that of a witness furnishing testimony at an adjudicatory proceeding and as a quasi-judicial officer. We disagree.

It is a well-established rule that judges, counsel, parties, and witnesses are absolutely immune from civil suits for defamatory remarks made during and relevant to judicial proceedings. See Erie County Farmers' Ins. Co. v. Crecelius (1930), 122 Ohio St. 210, 171 N.E. 97; McChesney v. Firedoor Corp. (1976), 50 Ohio App.2d 49, 51, 361 N.E.2d 552 . This immunity is based on the policy of protecting the integrity of the judicial process. The function of a judicial proceeding is to ascertain the truth. To achieve this noble goal, participants in judicial proceedings should be afforded every opportunity to make a full disclosure of all pertinent information within their knowledge. For a witness, this means he must be permitted to testify without fear of consequences. Freedom of speech in a judicial proceeding is essential to the ends of justice. 1 Harper & James, Law of Torts (1956) 423-426, Section 5.22.

Moreover, independence in decision-making is essential to preserving the integrity of the judicial process. Hence, judges are absolutely immune from civil liability for acts made within their jurisdiction. Bradley v. Fisher (1871), 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 335, 20 L.Ed. 646.

The same considerations underlying the immunity of judges provided the basis for immunity of prosecutors. Thus, prosecutors are considered "quasi-judicial officers" entitled to absolute immunity granted judges, when their activities are "intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process." Imbler v. Pachtman (1976), 424 U.S. 409, 430, 96 S.Ct. 984, 995, 47 L.Ed.2d 128. Imbler held that a prosecutor has absolute immunity " * * * in initiating a prosecution and in presenting the State's case * * *." Id. at 431, 96 S.Ct. at 995. However, "absolute immunity does not extend to a prosecutor engaged in essentially investigative or administrative functions." Dellums v. Powell (C.A.D.C.1981), 660 F.2d 802, 805, and cases cited therein. While performing these functions, he is entitled to only a qualified immunity.

In determining whether the prosecutor's acts are quasi-judicial as opposed to investigative or administrative, the courts have applied a functional analysis of his activities, rather than simply stating that he is a prosecutor whose status entitles him to absolute immunity. Goldschmidt v. Patchett (C.A.7, 1982), 686 F.2d 582, 585.

Applying this functional analysis to the case at bar, we must stress that Dr. McCloud's potential liability here is not predicated on his furnishing testimony at an adjudicatory proceeding or his submission of a medical report, but rather on the manner in which he conducted his earlier medical examinations of the appellees for the purpose of reporting their medical conditions to the Industrial Commission. Dr. McCloud's out-of-court physical examinations of appellees are an investigative-medical fact-finding function--not a quasi-judicial function. In performing these examinations, he is not a witness furnishing testimony at a trial. As shown above, absolute immunity is necessary to insure that judges, prosecutors, lawyers and witnesses can perform their respective functions in an adjudicatory proceeding without harassment or fear of consequences. However, since Dr. McCloud's function of conducting out-of-court physical examinations of claimants is not "intimately associated" with the quasi-judicial phase of the procedures for application of benefits under the workers' compensation law, the reasons for extending absolute immunity to this function are absent.

On the other hand, the claimants have no protection from inadequate medical examinations. Hence, the need for a damage remedy to an injured claimant is essential. Accordingly, we hold that an independent physician examining workers' compensation claimants, at the request of the Industrial Commission for the purpose of reporting their medical conditions, is not absolutely immune from a civil suit based on his examinations, notwithstanding that his report and testimony at an adjudicatory proceeding are privileged under the doctrine of witness immunity.

The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed and the cause is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith.

Judgment affirmed.

FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, C.J., and PRYATEL and CLIFFORD F. BROWN, JJ., concur.

WILLIAM B. BROWN, SWEENEY and HOLMES, JJ., dissent.

PRYATEL, J., of the Eighth Appellate District, sitting for LOCHER, J.

CLIFFORD F. BROWN, Justice, concurring.

Stripping absolute immunity from civil suit for an independent physician examining workers' compensation claimants for the purpose of reporting their medical conditions is a just result. It is long overdue, supported by a thorough analysis of the facts and existing law on immunity, and leaves undisturbed judicial immunity as well as those immunities related to testimony at adjudicatory proceedings and involving quasi-judicial officers.

This decision is generated by a festering evil at the Industrial Commission, where a small minority of physicians, to whom the commission refers claimants for examination and report, are willing to sell their expertise for a substantial price. That fourteen plaintiffs, whose claims are unrelated to each other in this case, are claiming damages for insufficient medical examinations made by the same defendant-physician emphasizes such point. It is equally significant that no similar suit has been filed against any other physician who examines claimants at the request of the commission.

Amici curiae argue that the absolute immunity rule for physicians engaged by the commission "is not so much for the benefit of the witnesses" but is for the "benefit of the people of Ohio whose interest it is that such persons be at liberty to exercise their functions with independence and honesty, without fear of legal liability." It has been suggested as a scare tactic that any limitation upon the nonliability of a physician will have a stifling effect upon the submission of a candid and open opinion. On the contrary, the whole point is that claimants must have some assurance that physicians like Dr. McCloud will "exercise their functions with independence and honesty." Given the oscitancy which still prevails at times on this court toward Industrial Commission claims by use...