FAYETTEVILLE -- A divided Arkansas Supreme Court reversed a local judge, overturned the Court of Appeals and ruled a psychologist didn't have legal immunity for actions he took while counseling a couple in a child custody case.
J. David John sued Dr. Martin T. Faitak in Washington County Circuit Court. The lawsuit alleged claims of medical negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, breach of confidentiality, outrage, deceit, defamation, invasion of privacy and civil conspiracy.
Quasi-judicial immunity
Extends judicial immunity from being sued to persons who are integral parts of the judicial process, such as prosecutors, court-appointed mediators and others lawfully acting or assisting in a judicial role. Psychologists in court-appointed roles serve as an extension of the court and therefore are protected from civil liability when they function within the community-accepted and ethical boundaries of the role.
Source: NWA Democrat-Gazette
The claims concerned psychological and counseling treatment Faitak administered to John and Megan Bolinder, who were parties to a custody case in Benton County.
Faitak asked Circuit Judge John Threet to dismiss the case, arguing he was entitled to quasi-judicial immunity.
Threet granted Faitak's motion and John appealed to the Arkansas Court of Appeals, which affirmed the lower court ruling.
But, the Arkansas Supreme Court agreed to review the case and ruled last week Faitak isn't entitled to quasi-judicial immunity in the case. The justices reversed the decision of the circuit court, vacated the court of appeals' opinion and remanded John's lawsuit against Faitak to the circuit court for further proceedings.
In 2013, John and Bolinder, who never married, were litigating the custody of their minor child in the Benton County Circuit Court. The judge appointed Faitak to do psychological examinations of both John and Bolinder. After the examinations, Faitak told the judge the "major problem" was "their lack of trust with each other," and recommended they "meet with each other on a regular basis with somebody trained to deal with conflict situations."
In February 2014, the judge entered another order John and Bolinder would submit to "mediation sessions" with Faitak to work toward learning how to have reasonable and respectful communications and establish trust between them.
John's lawsuit claims Faitak, Bolinder and Bolinder's lawyer conspired in an improper attempt to leverage or broker a settlement in the custody case. John alleged Faitak lied about talking to the other side and about the contents of the communications. John also alleges Faitak diagnosed John then improperly shared the diagnosis in front of Bolinder during one of the joint sessions.
The gist of the lawsuit is Faitak was biased and improperly favored Bolinder over John by giving John a "bogus" individual diagnosis and then communicating that diagnosis to Bolinder.
Faitak was ordered to try to help the couple with communication and trust issues through joint counseling sessions. Faitak acknowledged neither diagnosing John individually nor disclosing the diagnosis to Bolinder was part of his charge, according to court documents.
"An individual diagnosis was not within the scope of the appointment order, so quasi-judicial immunity does not extend to claims related to that diagnosis. It follows that any breach of confidentiality related to that individual diagnosis would also be outside the bounds of quasi-judicial immunity," Justice Josephine Linker Hart wrote in the majority opinion. "The same is true of the alleged conspiracy (which Faitak denies) to leverage or broker a settlement in Bolinder's favor."
In a dissenting opinion, Justice Karen Baker said in her view Faitak was both acting within the scope of the circuit court's order and serving an integral part of the judicial process and should be entitled to quasi-judicial immunity.
NW News on 03/23/2020