Bruce D Serven v. Health Quest Chiropractic Inc
330983
| Mich. Ct. App. | Apr 6, 2017Background
- Bruce Serven, a licensed chiropractor, performed an independent chiropractic examination (ICE) for State Farm concluding the claimant (AE) did not need further chiropractic care; State Farm denied further payments and prevailed in related litigation.
- Health Quest (part-owned by Solomon Cogan, who chaired the Michigan Board of Chiropractic) treated AE; Cogan’s partner Silvio Cozzetto filed a complaint against Serven with the Board alleging improper testing and opinions.
- The Attorney General filed an administrative complaint alleging negligence, incompetence, and lack of good moral character; an ALJ found Serven not guilty and issued a proposed decision in his favor.
- The Board’s Disciplinary Subcommittee (with members Klapp and Wilcox) rejected the ALJ’s proposal, found Serven negligent and likely lacking good moral character, and placed him on one year’s probation; this Court reversed and ordered expungement on appeal.
- Serven then sued Cogan, Klapp, and Wilcox in their individual capacities for malicious prosecution, tortious interference, abuse of process, and constitutional violations; the trial court dismissed some claims but denied dismissal of abuse of process and tortious interference.
- The Court of Appeals held the disciplinary subcommittee members are absolutely immune under the doctrine of quasi-judicial immunity and reversed the denial of dismissal, ordering dismissal of Serven’s complaint against those defendants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether board members are entitled to quasi-judicial (absolute) immunity for actions taken in the disciplinary process | Serven argued the members acted with self-interest, conflicts, and improper procedure, so they should not be immune | Defendants argued they acted in a quasi-judicial adjudicative capacity and are therefore absolutely immune | Court held the disciplinary subcommittee members are cloaked with absolute quasi-judicial immunity; claims dismissed |
| Whether conflict of interest (Cogan’s business interest and participation) defeats immunity | Serven argued Cogan’s financial interest and off-the-record participation undermined procedural safeguards and immunity | Defendants argued immunity survives even if officials acted maliciously or corruptly; North Carolina Dental Bd (antitrust context) is inapplicable | Court held conflicts did not negate quasi-judicial immunity; North Carolina State Bd of Dental Examiners v. FTC is inapposite (antitrust context) |
| Whether procedural safeguards were adequate to justify immunity | Serven argued safeguards failed (e.g., Cogan’s participation) leaving him without protection | Defendants pointed to statutory/regulatory processes: complaint intake, ALJ hearings, appellate review, disqualification rules, and ethics complaint process | Court found adequate procedural safeguards exist (ALJ, review, ability to seek judicial review and ethics complaints), so immunity is appropriate |
| Whether private civil suit was necessary given administrative remedies and review | Serven pursued a damages suit in circuit court asserting tort and constitutional claims | Defendants argued administrative remedies and judicial review provided appropriate avenues, reducing need for private damages suits | Court emphasized exhaustion and availability of direct judicial review and administrative ethics remedies; private suit dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Maiden v. Rozwood, 461 Mich 109 (standard for de novo review of summary disposition and use of documentary evidence)
- Diehl v. Danuloff, 242 Mich App 120 (rationale and policy for quasi-judicial immunity)
- Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478 (administrative adjudication can share judicial characteristics warranting immunity)
- Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219 (policy reasons for absolute judicial immunity)
- Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (judicial immunity protects judges even for acts alleged malicious or corrupt)
- Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. (foundational doctrine that judicial acts carry absolute immunity)
- North Carolina State Bd. of Dental Examiners v. FTC, 135 S. Ct. 1101 (Parker-immunity context; held distinguishable and inapplicable here)
- Midland Cogeneration Venture, LP v. Nafaltly, 489 Mich 83 (definition of quasi-judicial body and functions)
- Denhof v. Challa, 311 Mich App 499 (discussion of quasi-judicial immunity branches and analysis)
- Watts v. Burkhardt, 978 F.2d 269 (recognition that medical licensing boards often receive absolute quasi-judicial immunity)