Witness immunity does not apply to Health Care Information Act violations

(Continued - Page 2)

The Supreme Court considered the history of the witness-immunity rule, which provides that “witnesses are immune from all claims arising out of all testimony.” Generally, witnesses in judicial proceedings are absolutely immune from suit founded on their testimony. The purpose of this rule is to preserve the integrity of the judicial process by encouraging full and frank testimony. Historically, the witness-immunity rule has applied to guardians and therapists who submit reports to family court.

Ms. Earin argued she should be protected from liability under the HCIA, because, as a witness, she is immune “from all claims arising out of all testimony.” The Court disagreed, holding that witness immunity cannot shield violations of the HCIA. The Court found that the interest in protecting confidential disclosures made during medical treatment outweighs the public-policy justifications for the witness-immunity rule. “Consultations with confidential advisors should not require a warning that anything disclosed will be available to potential future litigation adversaries and may be used against the client in court.” The Court concluded that witness immunity will not shield professionals who disclose information in judicial proceedings in violation of the HCIA.

Despite this holding, the Earin Court also found that witness immunity may apply to witnesses who disclose information acquired in a pre-litigation professional relationship formed for non-litigation purposes. The Court of Appeals had held that witness immunity always applies whenever a witness discloses information acquired during the course of treatment and not with any view toward litigation. The Supreme Court found this application too broad.

Whether witness immunity applies in such situations depends on the individual circumstances of the case. The Court noted that Mr. Wynn’s negligence claims were based not on misdiagnoses or negligent treatment, but rather on alleged negligence in testifying beyond the scope allowable under applicable standards of care. The Court concluded that the witness-immunity rule clearly encompasses this kind of testimony.

The Earin Court concluded that the witness-immunity rule applied to bar Mr. Wynn’s malpractice claims arising from Ms. Earin’s appearance and testimony at the hearing to determine child placement. The Court reversed the Court of Appeals and held that the trial court properly dismissed Mr. Wynn’s malpractice claims grounded in Ms. Earin’s appearance and testimony at the hearing.