Dispute over discipline issued by a medical board; Absolute judicial immunity; Diehl v. Danuloff; Forrester v. White; Bradley v. Fisher; Butz v. Economou; Quasi-judicial immunity; Maiden v. Rozwood; Denhof v. Challa; “Quasi-judicial body”; Midland Cogeneration Venture, LP v. Nafalty; A “contested case”; MCL 24.203(3); Principle that an administrative law judge (ALJ) must act in an impartial manner & is not the final arbiter; MCL 24.279 & 24.281(1); Principle that the disciplinary subcommittee issues the final order & may adopt, modify, or reject the ALJ’s opinion or proposal for decision; MI Admin Code, R 338.1630(5); Principle that this final decision must be made “within a reasonable time” & supported by “competent, material and substantial evidence”; MCL 24.285; Extension of quasi-judicial immunity to a medical licensing board; Watts v. Burkhardt (6th Cir.); Buckwalter v. Nevada Bd. of Med. Exam’rs (9th Cir.); Ostrzenski v. Seigel (4th Cir.); Principle that adjudication within a federal administrative agency shares enough of the characteristics of the judicial process to warrant immunity; Public policy impact; Bettencourt v. Board of Registration in Medicine (1st Cir.); Vosburg v. Department of Soc. Servs. (4th Cir.); Judicial review; Const. 1963, art. 6, § 28; MCL 24.301; Right to an unbiased arbiter; R 338.1604; Replacement of board members; R 338.1605(3); R 338.1604; Disclosure requirements; MCL 333.16216a; Denial of immunity based on a conflict of interest; North Carolina State Bd. of Dental Exam’rs v. Federal Trade Comm’n; Immunity for anticompetitive conduct by states acting in their sovereign capacity; Parker v. Brown; Admonishment of board members; “Public officers”; MCL 15.341(c); MCL 15.342(3); Complaint alleging unethical conduct; State Board of Ethics Rules of Practice & Procedure, R 15.5(1)

Holding that the Disciplinary Subcommittee of the Michigan Board of Chiropractic (MBC) was cloaked with absolute quasi-judicial immunity, the court reversed the trial court’s denial of the defendants-board members’ motion for summary disposition in the plaintiff-chiropractor’s action alleging self-interest and improper discipline. Plaintiff was disciplined by the subcommittee after he conducted an independent chiropractic exam of a patient and advised an insurer that defendant-Health Quest’s chiropractic services were no longer necessary. Defendant-Cogan, who chaired the MBC, was also part owner of Health Quest. In that case, the court reversed the subcommittee, finding its order lacked legal and factual merit. Plaintiff then sued defendants for malicious prosecution, tortious interference with his advantageous business relationships, abuse of process, and violations of his due process and equal protection rights. The trial court granted defendants’ motion as to the constitutional and malicious prosecution claims, but denied it as to the claims for abuse of process and tortious interference. On appeal, the court agreed with defendants that they were entitled to quasi-judicial immunity because in their board positions, they acted as quasi-judicial adjudicators. “That the disciplinary subcommittee acts as a judge is supported by ‘the job-related duties, roles, or functions’ of the subcommittee’s members.” In addition, “quasi-judicial immunity is frequently extended to a medical licensing board charged with hearing license suspension and revocation matters.” Further, “[c]loaking the disciplinary subcommittee with absolute quasi-judicial immunity also serves” public policy, and the process “bears ‘adequate procedural safeguards’ to merit absolute immunity.” Although “the safeguards against biased individuals deciding a disciplinary matter did not work” here, immunity “does not fall away even when the judicial or quasi-judicial official acts ‘maliciously or corruptly.’” However, the court noted that plaintiff is not without recourse as he could have filed a complaint with the State Board of Ethics.