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.