575 S.W.3d 452
Ark. Ct. App.2019Background
- Appellant (father) and Bolinder (mother) were in a custody dispute over their child; the circuit court ordered both to undergo psychological examination and monthly joint counseling/mediation sessions with appellee (a psychologist) as part of court orders.
- During a May 29, 2014 joint session, appellee told appellant in Bolinder’s presence that appellant had a "narcissistic personality disorder." Appellant later filed a complaint with the Arkansas Psychology Board (APB).
- The APB investigated and entered a consent agreement imposing reprimand, a fine, and continuing-education requirements for appellee for violations relating to informed consent and related ethical standards; it treated an alleged multiple-relationship violation as a non-admission.
- Appellant sued appellee in circuit court for medical negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, breach of confidentiality, and later added torts including outrage and defamation. Appellee did not plead immunity in his initial answer.
- Appellee moved for summary judgment asserting he was entitled to judicial immunity for acts done pursuant to his court appointment. The circuit court granted summary judgment, holding appellee acted within the scope of his appointment and thus had judicial immunity. Appellant timely appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appellee is entitled to judicial (absolute) immunity for acts during court‑ordered evaluation/counseling | Brown argued appellee exceeded the scope of his court appointment and thus was not immune from suit | Appellee argued he was officially court‑appointed, performed evaluations/counseling as ordered, met Chambers factors, and so is protected by judicial immunity | Court held appellee acted within the scope of his appointment and is entitled to judicial immunity; summary judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Robinson v. Langdon, 333 Ark. 662, 970 S.W.2d 292 (1998) (adopts multi‑factor test to determine when nonjudge actors share attributes of judicial process and may receive absolute immunity)
- Chambers v. Stern, 338 Ark. 332, 994 S.W.2d 463 (1999) (extends judicial immunity to court‑appointed therapists acting within the scope of a court order; outlines four‑factor framework for court‑appointed evaluators/therapists)
- Chambers v. Stern (Chambers II), 347 Ark. 395, 64 S.W.3d 737 (2002) (further discussion/affirmation of immunity principles for court‑appointed mental‑health evaluators)