Case Results
Gordon & Silber, P.C. Obtains Dismissal in Psychiatric Malpractice Case Alleging that Psychiatrist who was Appointed as a Forensic Evaluator in a Matrimonial and Custodial Proceeding Caused Plaintiff Emotional Distress by Improperly Conducting his Evaluation and Issuing a Report to the Court which Reflected Negatively on the Plaintiff's Parenting Abilities — March 2010.
Type of Case: Psychiatric malpractice
Venue: New York Supreme Court, Rockland County
Background Facts: In 2009, Family Court, Rockland County, appointed our client to perform a psychiatric evaluation of the plaintiff, his wife and their child for the purposes of making a final determination as to custody and visitation rights. Our client conducted evaluation sessions of both parents individually and each with the child, as ordered by the Court. However, the plaintiff's session with his daughter was truncated due to the daughter's crying and the plaintiff's inability and lack of effort to console her. The psychiatrist issued his report, which, among other things, noted the plaintiff's inability to console his crying daughter during the evaluation.
Special Problems: The plaintiff, aware that court-appointed evaluators are generally given immunity from suit regarding reports issued to the Court, crafted his complaint in an attempt to bypass the immunity doctrine; he alleged breach of contract in that the psychiatrist did not complete his evaluation of plaintiff with his daughter and did not fully consult with outside sources (since the Court ordered Plaintiff to pay for the evaluations), negligence and gross negligence in that the psychiatrist's method of conducting the evaluations (as opposed to the contents of the report for which our insured admittedly had immunity) caused him stress and anxiety, and medical malpractice.
Our Strategy: Rather than file an answer on behalf of our insured and commence the lengthy process of discovery, we immediately moved to dismiss the case on immunity grounds. Our motion papers exposed plaintiff's allegations for what they were – creative attempts to proceed with a harassing and vindictive lawsuit despite plaintiff's awareness that our insured should be protected by the immunity doctrine. We argued that, should the Court accept plaintiff's argument - distinguishing the contents of a psychiatrist's report to the Court from his methodology in conducting evaluations – the doctrine of immunity would be eviscerated in that any plaintiff could sidestep immunity by properly crafting his pleadings.
Result: The Court dismissed the case against our insured, finding that immunity should apply to all aspects of the psychiatrist's work in furtherance of his Court-appointment. Moreover, while the Court opted not to impose sanctions, it stated that "plaintiff's arguments come dangerously close to sanctionable conduct."
|