No. 85-170

ITJ THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE O F MONTANA

1985

RICHARD BURGESS,

P l a i n t i f f and A p p e l l a n t ,

-vs-

MICHAEL J . SILVERGLAT, M.D.,

D e f e n d a n t and R e s p o n d e n t .

APPEAL FROM: D i s t r i c t C o u r t of t h e F o u r t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , I n and f o r t h e C o u n t y of M i s s o u l a , T h e H o n o r a b l e J a m e s B. W h e e l i s , Judge p r e s i d i n g .

COUNSEL O F RECORD:

For Appellant:

Richard Burgess, p r o se, D e e r L o d g e , Montana

F o r Respondent:

Garlington, L o h n & R o b i n s o n , M i s s o u l a , Montana

S u b m i t t e d on B r i e f s : May 3 0 , 1985

Decided: July 30, 1985

Clerk Mr. Justice Frank B. Morrison, Jr., delivered the Opinion of the Court. Richard Burgess filed this action on December 18, 1984, seeking damages for libel, slander and mental anguish. Dr. Silverglat filed a motion to dismiss on January 18, 1985. The District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, by order dated February 5, 1985, dismissed the case and entered judg- ment in favor of Dr. Silverglat. Mr. Burgess appeals. We

affirm. During March 1984, Richard Burgess was in the custody of Mineral County on a criminal charge. Dr. Silverglat was appointed by the court upon motion of Mr. Burgess' counsel to conduct an examination of Mr. Burgess pursuant to 5 46-14-202, MCA. The purpose of the psychiatric examination was to determine if Mr. Burgess' assaultive behavior was a result of his intoxication and whether the intoxication was voluntarily produced. Dr. Silverglat conducted the examination of Mr. Burgess on March 7, 1984, and a psychiatric evaluation report was submitted to the court in April 1984. According to Mr. Burgess, the report was sealed by order of court in July 1984, but was used by the Montana State Prison and the Board of Pardons during a parole hearing on November 30, 1984, and a pre-release screening on September 26, 1984.

Mr. Burgess alleges the report is false, fraudulent and defamatory, and raises the following issue on appeal. Whether under the circumstances of this case, the i n n - rru nity provided to members, officers, or agents of the judici- ary under 5 2-9-112, MCA, extends to respondent, Dr. Silverglat. Section 2-9-112, MCA, states as follows: "2-9-112. Immunity from suit for judi- cial acts and omissions. (1) The state and o t h e r g o v e r n m e n t a l u n i t s a r e immune from s u i t f o r a c t s o r o m i s s i o n s o f t h e judiciary.

" ( 2 ) A member, o f f i c e r , o r a g e n t o f t h e j u d i c i a r y i s immune from s u i t f o r damages a r i s i n g from h i s l a w f u l d i s c h a r g e o f a n o f f i c i a l duty associated with judicial actions of the court.

" ( 3 ) The j u d i c i a r y i n c l u d e s t h o s e c o u r t s e s t a b l i s h e d i n accordance with A r t i c l e V I I o f The C o n s t i t u t i o n o f t h e S t a t e o f Montana.

The D i s t r i c t C o u r t found t h a t i n s u b m i t t i n g t h e p s y c h i -

a t r i c r e p o r t upon which t h i s c l a i m i s b a s e d , D r . Silverglat

a c t e d a s a n a g e n t o f t h e S t a t e o f Montana and more p a r t i c u -

l a r l y a n a g e n t o f t h e j u d i c i a r y o f t h e S t a t e o f Montana. The

r e p o r t was p r e p a r e d a s a p a r t o f t h e l a w f u l d i s c h a r g e o f h i s

o f f i c i a l d u t i e s and p u r s u a n t t o 5 2-9-112, MCA, the D i s t r i c t

C o u r t found D r . S i l v e r g l a t was immune from s u i t .

The a p p e l l a n t c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e r e p o r t was n o t a l a w f u l

d i s c h a r g e o f a n o f f i c i a l d u t y b e c a u s e i t was f a l s e and f r a u d -

ulent. H e m a i n t a i n s t h a t r e s p o n d e n t knew t h e i n f o r m a t i o n i n

t h e r e p o r t was f a l s e and o n l y made t h e s t a t e m e n t s t o m i s l e a d

the court. Appellant a l s o contends t h a t respondent v i o l a t e d

S 45-7-207, MCA, regarding tampering with or fabricating

p h y s i c a l evidence.

We do not reach the issue of whether or not

Dr. S i l v e r g l a t i s p r o v i d e d immunity a s a n a g e n t o f t h e j u d i -

c i a r y under S 2-9-112, MCA, because the psychiatric report

was a p r i v i l e g e d communication u n d e r 5 27-1-804, MCA. Sec-

t i o n 27-1-804, s t a t e s t h a t " [ a ] p r i v i l e g e d p u b l i c a t i o n i s one

made: ... ( 2 ) i n any l e g i s l a t i v e o r j u d i c i a l p r o c e e d i n g o r

i n any o t h e r official proceeding authorized by law . . ." (emphasis added) One r e q u i s i t e of a defamation a c t i o n is

t h a t t h e communication must n o t b e p r i v i l e g e d . Any m a t t e r

s t a t e d o r published i n a l e g i s l a t i v e o r j u d i c i a l proceeding is privileged and cannot be the subject of a defamation

action. Skinner v. Pistoria (Mont. 1 9 8 1 ) , 6 3 3 P.2d 672, 38

St.Rep. 1501. Clearly, Dr. Silverglat's r e p o r t w a s made a s

part of a judicial proceeding and is protected from t h i s

action.

S k i n n e r g o e s on t o s t a t e t h a t t h e p r i v i l e g e c o n f e r r e d b y

S 27-1-804, MCA, i s an a b s o l u t e p r i v i l e g e . T h i s means t h a t

it would n o t m a t t e r i f t h e r e p o r t w e r e m a l i c i o u s l y m o t i v a t e d ,

a s a p p e l l a n t contends. The p r i v i l e g e s t i l l h o l d s .

We a f f i r m t h e r e s u l t o f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t o r d e r .