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.
Copyright ©2024 LegalFix. All rights reserved. LegalFix is not a law firm, is not licensed to practice law, and does not provide legal advice, services, or representation. The information on this website is an overview of the legal plans you can purchase—or that may be provided by your employer as an employee benefit or by your credit union or other membership group as a membership benefit.
LegalFix provides its members with easy access to affordable legal services through a network of independent law firms. LegalFix, its corporate entity, and its officers, directors, employees, agents, and contractors do not provide legal advice, services, or representation—directly or indirectly.
The articles and information on the site are not legal advice and should not be relied upon—they are for information purposes only. You should become a LegalFix member to get legal services from one of our network law firms.
You should not disclose confidential or potentially incriminating information to LegalFix—you should only communicate such information to your network law firm.
The benefits and legal services described in the LegalFix legal plans are not always available in all states or with all plans. See the legal plan Benefit Overview and the more comprehensive legal plan contract during checkout for coverage details in your state.
Use of this website, the purchase of legal plans, and access to the LegalFix networks of law firms are subject to the LegalFix Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.