stating, under a prior version of workers’ compensation scheme that an independent physician examining workers’ compensation claimants, at the request of the commission for the purpose of reporting their medical conditions was performing an “investigative-medical fact-finding function”
How later courts described this case
- stating, under a prior version of workers’ compensation scheme that an independent physician examining workers’ compensation claimants, at the request of the commission for the purpose of reporting their medical conditions was performing an “investigative-medical fact-finding function”
- concluding that the litigation privilege shielded a physician from liability arising from his testimony in judicial proceedings but not from claims arising from the manner in which he conducted examinations
- “[i]n determining whether the prosecutor’s acts are quasi-judicial as opposed to investigative or administrative, the [federal] courts have applied a functional analysis of his activities, rather than simply stating that he is a prosecutor whose status entitles him to absolute immunity”
- “It is a well-established rule that judges, counsel, parties, and witnesses are absolutely immune from civil suits for defamatory remarks made during and relevant to judicial proceedings.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
William B. Brown, J.,
dissenting. I wholeheartedly concur in Justice Sweeney’s dissent and would note that this position has found support in other jurisdictions. See Seibel v. Kemble (1981), 63 Haw. 516 , 631 P. 2d 173 (Ogata, J., Supreme Court of Hawaii).