Public Health Law Map - Beta 5 - Medical and Public Health Law Site

individuals working for a private corporation that operated a state prison. This rule
has since been applied to a physician performing contract work for a state health
facility. Jensen v. Lane County, 222 F.3d 570 (9th Cir. 2000).
In a § 1983 action, the Supreme Court ruled that a doctor who was under contract
with the state to provide medical services to a state prison hospital on a part-time
basis was acting under color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42 (1988).
However, many other courts have held that those who contract with the state to
perform public functions do not necessarily become state actors for § 1983 purposes.
The Third Circuit has said that acts of private contractors do not become acts of the
state under § 1983 simply because public contracts are being performed. Boyle v.
Governor’s Outreach and Assistance Ctr., 925 F.2d 71 (3d Cir. 1991). The Sixth
Circuit ruled that a private mental health facility under contract with the state is not a
state actor when it comes to personnel decisions because such decisions are not
directly related to any legal obligation of the state. Simescu v. Emmett County Dept.
of Soc. Serv., 942 F.2d 372 (6th Cir. 1991).
An example of a private contractor who received state immunity in a § 1983 action is
in the case Ostrzenski v. Seigel, 177 F.3d 245 (4th Cir. 1999). Dr. Ostrzenski brought
a § 1983 action against Dr. Seigel, who conducted a peer review of Dr. Ostrzenski at
the behest of the Maryland Board of Physician Quality Assurance. Dr. Ostrzenski
alleged that Dr. Seigel denied him due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth
Amendments as a result of procedural irregularities in the peer review process. The
court dismissed the claim, reasoning that Dr. Seigel was entitled to absolute quasi-
judicial immunity from prosecution on Dr. Ostrzenski's § 1983 claim. In the court’s
view, Dr. Seigel was performing a function analogous to a prosecutor reviewing
evidence to determine if charges should be brought, and absolute immunity was
necessary to foster an atmosphere in which a reviewing physician could exercise
professional judgment without fear of retaliation.
D. State Tort Claims Acts
Eleventh Amendment state immunity can be waived by the state's tort claims act
(TCA). Like the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), state tort claims acts were enacted
by the vast majority of states to address the inequities inherent in sovereign immunity,
and hold the state vicariously liable for the torts of its employees. These statutes are
strictly construed—a court will resolve any ambiguities in favor of preserving state
immunity. If a state employee is sued under a TCA, the state becomes the defendant in
the case and is vicariously liable for damages.
Although tort claims acts differ amongst the states, certain exceptions to the waiver of
immunity are made in similar fashion to the FTCA. For example, the state will not be
liable for an employee's intentional torts, such as battery or sexual assault, or criminal
acts. Punitive damages are not usually allowed, and caps are placed on the amount of
damages a litigant can recover from the state—usually between $100,000 and $1
million.
89