180 Conn. App. 18
Conn. App. Ct.2018Background
- Davidson, a long‑time Bridgeport police sergeant, was on disability leave for service‑related spinal injuries and had an ongoing internal affairs complaint against him that distressed him.
- After a May 19, 2006 meeting in which Davidson erupted about the internal affairs outcome, Chief Norwood requested a psychiatric independent medical examination (IME) to assess Davidson’s fitness and welfare.
- Concentra’s notice to Davidson (mis)stated medical records to bring, causing Davidson to expect a physical exam; he left when he learned the IME was psychiatric, was ordered to attend, and later completed the psychiatric evaluation.
- Norwood later sought and the Police Commissioners granted a service‑related involuntary retirement for Davidson based on physical disability records.
- Davidson sued the city, the department, and Norwood for invasion of privacy (unreasonable intrusion and dissemination of the psychiatric report) and for negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress; the trial court ruled for the defendants and this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ordering a mandatory psychiatric IME unreasonably intruded on Davidson’s privacy | Norwood forced Davidson into a psychiatric exam (after a misleading notice), constituting an offensive intrusion into seclusion | Chief had authority and a bona fide concern for Davidson’s welfare/fitness for duty; IME was reasonable under employment context | Court: No unreasonable intrusion — referral was motivated by welfare/fitness concerns and not improper intent |
| Whether defendants released/disseminated the psychiatric evaluation causing involuntary retirement | Rubinstein’s report was disseminated and caused the Commissioners to retire Davidson for psychiatric reasons | Testimony showed personnel custodians never copied/disseminated the psychiatric report; retirement based on physical disability records | Court: No dissemination proven; retirement supported by physical disability evidence |
| Whether defendants intentionally or negligently caused severe emotional distress | Davidson claims the forced psychiatric exam and its handling caused severe emotional harm | Defendants show no intent to cause distress; Davidson’s emotional harm predated IME and stemmed from internal affairs matter | Court: Claims fail — no intent, no causal link, and no unreasonable risk creating bodily harm |
Key Cases Cited
- Foncello v. Amorossi, [citation="284 Conn. 225"] (Conn. 2007) (describes four distinct privacy tort categories)
- Goodrich v. Waterbury Republican‑American, [citation="188 Conn. 107"] (Conn. 1982) (distinguishes privacy torts from defamation and outlines privacy categories)
- International Brotherhood of Police Officers, Local 361 v. New Milford, [citation="81 Conn. App. 726"] (Conn. App. 2004) (municipality’s legitimate interest in officer fitness and emotional stability)
- National Treasury Employees Union v. Von Raab, [citation="489 U.S. 656"] (U.S. 1989) (diminished privacy expectation for law enforcement employees regarding fitness inquiries)
- Lynch v. New York, [citation="589 F.3d 94"] (2d Cir. 2009) (special‑needs framework for employment‑related searches)