counsel, Kalman has pursued an administrative appeal in Superior Court. [Dkt. No. 43, Ex. L], This court concludes that such safeguards of Kal-man’s rights with respect to confinement support a finding that the doctors responsible for preparing and providing psychological reports to the Connecticut courts in the course of such courts’ determination of an individual’s mental health and confinement status are entitled to absolute immunity in the course of performing such function. See Hili, 140 F.3d at 214. Courts in other jurisdictions have similarly found that doctors performing a psychiatric or psychological evaluation pursuant to court request are entitled to absolute immunity for the preparation and submission of that evaluation. See, e.g., Hughes v. Long, 242 F.3d 121 (3d Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>); Moses v. Parwatikar, 813 F.2d 891 (8th
holding the record does not show that the statement to the social worker was for medical treatment because the social worker testified that he questioned the child to determine whether he needed to notify child protective services of a case of suspected child abuse holding that statements are admissible in absence of showing that parents were not notified in accordance with statute holding that social worker was not entitled to absolute immunity for filing complaint becausejudicial proceedings were initiated by district attorney who filed petition for adjudication holding that counsels failure to call clinical psychologist to provide emotional disturbance mitigation was reasonable trial strategy holding that a licensed clinical social worker and a licensed clinical psychologist who in accordance with court order evaluated parents in child custody dispute were entitled to judicial immunity from suit for damages by father who alleged that reports were false and misleading