 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Gilbert v. Sperbeck12/9/2005
No. 5964
Before: Bryner, Chief Justice, Matthews, Eastaugh, Fabe, and Carpeneti, Justices.
I. INTRODUCTION
After Lois Gilbert arbitrated a dispute with her insurer, State Farm Insurance Company, she sued the psychologist, Dr. David Sperbeck, who examined her for State Farm and testified as its expert witness in the arbitration. We hold that witness immunity bars Gilbert's fraud and misrepresentation claims against Dr. Sperbeck and that the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) does not provide for the relief she seeks. We therefore affirm the summary judgment entered against her in the superior court.
II. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
Lois Gilbert's automobile was rear-ended in an unwitnessed hit-and-run vehicular accident in 1994. She was diagnosed with whiplash on the basis of her representations and filed an uninsured motorist claim with her motor vehicle insurer, State Farm Insurance Company. Her claim was submitted to arbitration per the insurance contract. State Farm retained Dr. David Sperbeck, a clinical psychologist, to perform an independent psychological examination (IPE) of Gilbert and to serve as an expert witness in the arbitration.
Dr. Sperbeck administered several computerized psychological tests to Gilbert and conducted a psychological interview. The tests and interview were administered over two days. During the first day of testing, Gilbert complained that the chair provided by Dr. Sperbeck was insufficiently supportive and caused pain to her back. Gilbert rescheduled the second day of testing due to this back pain.
In his deposition in the arbitration proceeding, Dr. Sperbeck testified that he believed that Gilbert experienced actual pain relating to the 1994 accident, but that a personality disorder complicated the pain and caused Gilbert to over-report symptoms. He concluded that while Gilbert did not have a major psychiatric disorder, she did have a histrionic personality disorder with narcissistic features that "causes her to exaggerate and magnify the degree . . . of pain that she's in" and to magnify "the degree of disability that she has."
The arbitrator found that no trauma resulting in injury had occurred in the 1994 accident. He noted in his decision that there was no independent and objective evidence linking any of Gilbert's physical problems to the 1994 accident. He also stated that issues of credibility were central to the dispute, and that he felt compelled to resolve them against Gilbert, who was the only live witness.
Gilbert then filed this lawsuit against Dr. Sperbeck, alleging that he mis-characterized her to the arbitrator and conducted a fraudulent IPE. Gilbert also claimed that Dr. Sperbeck violated the ADA and analogous state and local laws by failing to provide her with an appropriate chair during the evaluation. Her complaint sought an award of damages. The superior court granted Dr. Sperbeck's motion for summary judgment on all counts. Gilbert appeals.
III. DISCUSSION
A. Standard of Review
We review grants of summary judgment de novo. "Summary judgment is appropriate where 'there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and . . . any party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.' " We draw all factual inferences in favor of, and view the facts in the light most favorable to, the non-prevailing party (generally the non-movant). We review questions of law de novo and adopt the rule of law that is most persuasive in light of precedent, policy, and reason.
B. Gilbert's Claims of Fraud and Misrepresentation Are Barred by Witness Immunity
Gilbert alleges that Dr. Sperbeck c
Page 1 2 3 4 Alaska Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|