539 S.W.3d 685
Ky. Ct. App.2017Background
- Patricia Nave (pro se) sued court-appointed custodial evaluators Dr. David Feinberg and Amy Rouse, attorney Ross Stinetorf, and former husband William Patten, alleging malpractice, breach of contract, unlawful disclosure, defamation, fraud, intentional infliction of emotional distress, obstruction of child-abuse investigation, and related conspiracies arising from a 2011 custody evaluation and report.
- The Fayette Family Court ordered Feinberg & Associates to perform a custodial evaluation in March 2011; the evaluation was completed and discussed at a custody conference on August 2, 2011; Nave received primary custody and the parties settled in December 2011.
- Nave filed her 91-page tort complaint on March 21, 2014, more than two years after the custody conference and well past the one-year limitations period she invoked.
- Feinberg and Rouse moved to dismiss asserting quasi-judicial immunity, statute-of-limitations bar, and failure to state claims; Stinetorf joined and asserted judicial-statement (absolute) immunity for statements made in the family-court proceeding.
- The Fayette Circuit Court granted dismissal: Stinetorf dismissed for lack of duty/absolute privilege; Feinberg and Rouse dismissed on quasi-judicial immunity and as time-barred; the court found no contract with evaluators and no state private cause of action for HIPAA violations.
- Nave appealed; appellate court affirmed, holding custodial evaluators are entitled to quasi-judicial immunity, Stinetorf was covered by the judicial-statement privilege, and the one-year limitations period had expired.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court-appointed custodial evaluators have quasi-judicial immunity | Nave argued evaluators acted for Patten or in bad faith/lacked impartiality and thus are not immune | Feinberg/Rouse argued they were court-appointed neutral fact-finders entitled to quasi-judicial immunity | Held: Evaluators were court-appointed neutral fact-finders and enjoy quasi-judicial immunity; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether attorney statements/filings are protected by judicial-statements (absolute) privilege | Nave argued Stinetorf’s conduct/statements were actionable outside privilege | Stinetorf argued communications were made in course of judicial proceeding and were material/relevant, so privileged | Held: Communications fell within judicial-statements privilege; Stinetorf immune; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether claims are time-barred under the one-year statute of limitations (KRS 413.140) | Nave contended causes accrued later or were subject to tolling/discovery rule | Defendants argued limitations ran from custody report/conference (Aug 2, 2011) and Nave filed March 21, 2014, beyond one year | Held: Limitations began at custody report/conference; claims filed well after one-year period; time-barred |
| Whether plaintiff stated viable substantive claims (contract, HIPAA, damages) | Nave claimed breach of contract, unlawful disclosure (HIPAA), and damages from evaluator misconduct | Defendants argued no contract existed with evaluators, HIPAA gives no private state cause of action, and Nave suffered no cognizable damages (she retained custody) | Held: No contract; no private state cause of action for HIPAA; plaintiff failed to show damages; claims fail |
Key Cases Cited
- Stone v. Glass, 35 S.W.3d 827 (Ky. Ct. App. 2000) (recognizing quasi-judicial immunity for court-appointed custodial evaluators)
- Horn v. Commonwealth, 916 S.W.2d 173 (Ky. 1995) (extending quasi-judicial immunity to court-designated workers acting under court direction)
- Morgan & Pottinger, Attorneys, P.S.C. v. Botts, 348 S.W.3d 599 (Ky. 2011) (explaining requirements for the judicial-statements privilege)
- J.S. v. Berla, 456 S.W.3d 19 (Ky. Ct. App. 2015) (reaffirming that court-appointed psychologists receive quasi-judicial immunity)
- Parker v. Dodgion, 971 P.2d 496 (Utah 1998) (analyzing custodial evaluator role as fact-finder and its relation to immunity)