From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cawthon v. Coffer

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Jul 26, 1972
264 So. 2d 873 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1972)

Summary

concluding psychiatrists who were appointed by the court to determine plaintiff's mental and physical condition were immune from suit by plaintiff for conduct within scope of appointment

Summary of this case from Vaughan v. McLeod Regional Med

Opinion

No. 71-670.

July 26, 1972.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Hillsboro County, Robert W. Patton, J.

Charles H. Oates and Paul Barnard, St. Petersburg, for appellant.

H. Vance Smith, of Macfarlane, Ferguson, Allison Kelly, Tampa, for appellees Coffer and Rubio.

William J. Switalski, of Switalski Lazzara, Tampa, for appellee Osterman.


Appellant Cawthon's first amended complaint was dismissed with leave to amend. His appeal to this Court was dismissed by stipulation of the parties. He then filed his second amended complaint, which was withdrawn by stipulation of the parties. Cawthon elected not to plead further, and upon motion of appellees, the cause was dismissed.

Cawthon sought to recover damages for a tort allegedly committed by appellees. He alleged, inter alia, that the appellees, Coffer and Rubio, licensed and practicing psychiatrists, and a layman, appellee Osterman, were appointed by the County Judge's Court to act as a committee to ascertain Cawthon's mental and physical condition. He alleged that the only examination made of him was cursory, superficial, unspecific, without prior investigation, brief, without prior psychometric evaluation, exhibiting a reckless indifference to the rights of appellant, wholly lacking in and wantonly disregardful of that degree of care and skill required in the exercise of their respective duties and standards of care to appellant, necessitated by the circumstances and demanded by their duty as measured by the trust which the statute and Court order reposed in them, and without due examination and inquiry into the proof of the fact of appellant's true mental and physical condition. The complaint further alleged that appellees reported to the County Judge's Court that a thorough examination had been conducted and that they determined him to be incompetent. He further alleged that he was not incompetent, and that this fact would have been discovered by appellees had they made a thorough physical and mental examination of him. Cawthon alleged that as a result of this negligence, maliciousness, culpability and reckless disregard for the rights of appellant in the failure to make a thorough and complete physical and mental examination, he was adjudged incompetent; and that as a result he had suffered severe mental and emotional distress, physical pain and suffering, loss of physical health, and loss of real and personal property and income.

In its order granting the motion to dismiss, the lower Court found that the complaint failed to state a cause of action because (1) a doctor who is appointed by a Court for the purpose of making a physical examination to determine mental capacity in an incompetency proceeding should be immune from action based upon his negligence in making the examination; and (2) the complaint did not allege that the doctors performed the mental examination in an improper or negligent manner with the intent of inflicting severe or undue emotional distress.

Appellees cross-assign as error the conclusion that an action would lie against a physician appointed by a Court who deliberately performed a mental examination in an improper or negligent manner with the intent of inflicting severe or undue emotional distress upon the person being examined.

We agree with the trial Court that the complaint failed to state a cause of action.

The Courts of this State have acknowledged an absolute privilege or immunity from liability for actions arising out of judicial proceedings, including a committee appointed to examine into a person's competency, Fisher v. Payne, 1927, 93 Fla. 1085, 113 So. 378. In Beckham v. Cline, 1942, 151 Fla. 481, 10 So.2d 419, the Court did not hold that members of a court-appointed committee were liable for misstatements of findings or errors in judgment, but rather that the members of the committee were required to make an examination concerning the mental condition of the person under consideration, which they did not do, before they were authorized to make a report of their findings. In Bacon v. Bacon, 1899, 76 Miss. 458, 24 So. 968, quoted in Beckham, the physicians certified that they had examined the person under consideration and found her to be insane, when in fact they had not examined her as to her sanity or insanity. In the present case there was no allegation that the psychiatrists had not examined the appellant or that the examination was not for the purpose of determining his sanity or insanity.

In view of our ruling that the complaint was insufficient to state a cause of action against appellees, it is unnecessary to consider appellees' cross-assignment of error.

The judgment appealed is, therefore

Affirmed.

HOBSON and MANN, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Cawthon v. Coffer

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Jul 26, 1972
264 So. 2d 873 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1972)

concluding psychiatrists who were appointed by the court to determine plaintiff's mental and physical condition were immune from suit by plaintiff for conduct within scope of appointment

Summary of this case from Vaughan v. McLeod Regional Med
Case details for

Cawthon v. Coffer

Case Details

Full title:EDWARD HARLEY CAWTHON, APPELLANT, v. ROBERT H. COFFER, JR., ET AL.…

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District

Date published: Jul 26, 1972

Citations

264 So. 2d 873 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1972)

Citing Cases

Zock v. Miller

In Florida a psychiatrist appointed by the court to examine a criminally accused enjoys quasi-judicial…

Williamitis v. Kelley

Affirmed. See Cawthon v. Coffer, 264 So.2d 873 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972); Zock v. Miller, 505 So.2d 18 (Fla. 3d DCA…