No member of any board or commission subject to the provisions of chapter 368v, chapters 369 to 375, inclusive, 378 to 381, inclusive, 383 to 388, inclusive, 398 and 399, including a member of a medical hearing panel established pursuant to subsection (g) of section
20-8a, and no person making a complaint or providing information to any of such boards or commissions or the Department of Public Health as part of an investigation pursuant to section
19a-14, or a disciplinary action pursuant to section
19a-17, shall, without a showing of malice, be personally liable for damage or injury to a practitioner arising out of any proceeding of such boards and commissions or department. A person making a complaint or providing information to any of such boards or commissions or to the Department of Public Health as part of an investigation pursuant to section
19a-14 or a disciplinary action pursuant to section
19a-17 shall be entitled to indemnification and defense in the manner set forth in section
5-141d with respect to a state officer or employee.
(P.A. 80-484, S. 144, 176; P.A. 94-174, S. 2, 12; P.A. 95-71, S. 2; P.A. 95-257, S. 12, 21, 58.)
History: Sec. 19-4v transferred to Sec. 19a-20 in 1983; P.A. 94-174 extended nonliability for complainants to investigations by the department and disciplinary action pursuant to Sec. 19a-17 and provided for indemnification and defense for complainants, effective June 6, 1994; P.A. 95-71 added members of medical hearing panels to those exempt from liability; P.A. 95-257 replaced Commissioner and Department of Public Health and Addiction Services with Commissioner and Department of Public Health, effective July 1, 1995.
Section abrogates common-law absolute immunity applicable to statements made to medical examining board of department in connection with proceedings of the board. 272 C. 776.
Malice required by section is actual malice. 75 CA 819. Where statutory immunity provided by this section and Sec. 19a-17b overlaps with common-law provision of absolute immunity to those who make statements in connection with quasi-judicial proceedings, statutes are in derogation of common law and must prevail over common-law grant of absolute immunity, and examination of the plain language and legislative history of statutes clearly and unambiguously demonstrated legislature's intent to provide only a qualified immunity to defendants. 77 CA 104.
Notes of Decisions
Chadha v. Charlotte Hungerford Hosp., 865 A.2d 1163 (Conn. 2005).
· cites it 16× “The defendants answered the remaining portions of the plaintiffs amended complaint and asserted several special defenses, including absolute immunity for statements made in connection with quasi-judicial proceedings 10 and qualified immunity pursuant to General Statutes §§…”
Chadha v. Charlotte Hungerford Hosp., 822 A.2d 303 (Conn. App. Ct. 2003).
· cites it 41× “The defendants answered the *108 remaining portions of the plaintiffs amended complaint and asserted several special defenses, including absolute immunity for statements made in connection with quasi-judicial proceedings and qualified immunity pursuant to General Statutes §§…”
Chadha v. Shimelman, 818 A.2d 789 (Conn. App. Ct. 2003).
· cites it 8× “Both defendants asserted the special defense of statutory immunity pursuant to General Statutes § 19a-20. 7 In December, 2000, the plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment, which the court denied.”
Kruger v. Grauer, 164 A.3d 764 (Conn. App. Ct. 2017).
· cites it 5× “General Statutes § 19a-20 provides in relevant part that [n]o member of any board or commission .”
Villages, LLC v. Longhi, 142 A.3d 1162 (Conn. App. Ct. 2016).
· cites it 3× “In Chadha, both this court and our Supreme Court concluded that General Statutes §§ 19a-20 and 19a-17b abrogated common-law absolute immunity with respect to statements made in conjunction with quasi-judicial proceedings, such as medical licensure boards and data banks.”
Chadha v. Charlotte Hungerford Hosp., 906 A.2d 14 (Conn. App. Ct. 2006).
· cites it 2× “” 4 General Statutes § 19a-20 provides in relevant part,: “No member of any board or commission subject to the provisions of chapter 368v, chapters 369 to 375, inclusive, 378 to 381, inclusive, 383 to 388, inclusive, 398 and 399, including a member of a medical hearing panel…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.