concurring specially.
I concur in the judgment but arrive by a different route.
I agree that the social workers and Dr. Oguz were immune from suit, but for the reasons explained below. As to Dr. Grigsby, the unquestionable application of another principle precludes liability, without a decision about sovereign or statutory immunity.
The crimes which led to institutional confinement in this case were committed on December 12, 1979. The trial at which Reed was found not guilty by reason of insanity at the time of the commission of the acts was on or about January 17, 1980. He was committed by virtue of being an insanity-acquitee rather than pursuant to the mental health code. The release from the institution occurred by order of the superior court filed March 11, 1981. The killing complained of in this civil suit occurred on February 25, 1982.
1. Dr. Grigsby cannot be held liable. He was a clinical psychologist and Chief of Forensic Services at West Central Georgia Regional Hospital when he wrote to the court on February 11, 1981. His letter was prompted by the federal court order in Benham v. Edwards, 501 FSupp. 1050 (N.D. Ga. 1980).1 He simply stated the conclusion that “it is our professional opinion that [Reed] presently does not meet the criteria for civil commitment under Ga. Code Chapter 88-5.” At the time, Code § 88-501 (v) defined “mentally ill person requiring involuntary treatment” as “a person who is mentally ill and (1) who presents a substantial risk of imminent harm to himself or others as manifested by either recent overt acts or recent expressed threats of violence which present a probability of physical injury to himself or to other persons, or (2) who is so unable to care for his own physical health and safety as to create an imminently life-endangering crisis.” All of the evidence shows that there were no recent overt acts or threats prior to Dr. Grigsby’s letter. The evidence is undisputed that there were none in the entire time of Reed’s confinement of over a year. Whether he presented a substantial risk of harm, much less “imminent” harm, was not the Georgia test. Dr. Grigsby requested a hearing on the question of Reed’s continued commitment, “in order to comply with the mandate of the U. S. District Court,” which required a hearing within 90 days of the federal order. He indicated to the court that Reed was indigent and requested an attorney. He also advised how hospital witnesses could be obtained. He submitted a form discharge order in case it was “the consensus of all concerned *388that the patient should be released without a hearing” and the court chose to follow that procedure, which Grigsby understood to be compatible with the federal court order because the State had “the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the individual meets the criteria for involuntary hospitalization in Ga. Code Chapters 88-5 or 88-25.” Benham, supra at 1076. No hearing was held. Nor did the court consult the superintendent or make further inquiry into the basis for Grigsby’s conclusion. Instead, the court ordered that “Reed be released from confinement and commitment to West Central Georgia Regional Hospital.” It was signed “approved” by the district attorney and an authorized representative of the Attorney General. Significantly, the court did not base its authority on the federal court order, which is not even mentioned, but rather on Georgia Code § 27-1503 (b).
The court did not follow the procedure required by that statute governing the release of persons confined as a result of judgments of not guilty by reason of insanity at the time of the offense. As it was then in effect, see Ga. Laws 1977, pp. 1293, 1295 § 2, it required a hearing.2 Not only that, hearing and release were not authorized except upon application of the person committed or “the superintendent of the State hospital in which such person is confined.” Brooks Cagle, and not Dr. Grigsby, was superintendent.
That aside, Grigsby only set in motion the consideration of whether Reed should be further confined, in obedience to a federal court order. As a matter of law, such action cannot constitute negligence, much less wilful, wanton misconduct or bad faith.
This pretermits the question whether Grigsby was immune from suit by way of the legislative grace provided in Ga. Code § 88-502.23. At the time he wrote to the court on February 11, 1981, and at the time the court acted on March 11, 1981, it exempted physicians, peace officers, attorneys, health officials, and hospital officials, agents, and employees. Effective July 1, 1981, “psychologists” were added. Ga. Laws 1981, pp. 996, 997, § 3. According to the state’s brief, Grigsby was a clinical psychologist. Of course, it may be argued that he *389was also a “health official, hospital official, agent or employee” and so was covered in that capacity as Chief of Forensic Services, even if the immunity for psychologists was not in effect when he acted. Oguz was a psychiatrist and thus a covered “physician” insofar as his involvement in discharge is concerned.
Also pretermitted is whether the psychologist immunity would attach because the suit was not brought until 1983 and the cause of action did not arise until the pastor’s death in February 1982, after the July 1981 effective date of the amendment.
Finally, not reached is the question of whether the statutory immunity for persons involved in the admission and discharge of mentally ill persons to and from a mental health facility provided by Code § 88-502.23 supplants or supplements the general governmental immunity granted for discretionary acts of employees of the state and its political subdivisions. The statutory immunity covers more people, as it extends to attorneys and to private hospitals, than does governmental immunity. It provides immunity to one “who acts in good faith in compliance with the admission and discharge provisions of [Chapter 88-5]. . . .” Governmental immunity would extend to persons who have not acted with wilfulness, malice or corruption. Hennessy v. Webb, 245 Ga. 329 (264 SE2d 878) (1980); Nelson v. Spalding County, 249 Ga. 334 (1) (290 SE2d 915) (1982); Truelove v. Wilson, 159 Ga. App. 906, 907 (4) (285 SE2d 556) (1981). Whether these are the same I do not hazard a guess. Also, governmental immunity would cover a broader range of acts, such as medical diagnosis, care, and treatment, whereas the statutory immunity covers only “actions in connection with . . . admission ... to a facility or . . . discharge . . . from a facility.” Sovereign immunity would seem to prevent suit against all four appellees acting with discretion in their official capacities. Dept. of Human Resources v. Briarcliff Haven, 141 Ga. App. 448, 451 (233 SE2d 844) (1977).3 Whether Dr. Grigsby was acting in a ministerial rather than discretionary manner when he simply complied with the federal court order need not be reached.
The release was not bottomed on anything that Oguz, or Crofford or Dunlap who only acted after the order, said or did, so there can be no liability of any of them based thereon.
2. The laws in effect at the times of concern here, i.e., when the crimes were committed, verdict returned, commitment ordered, and release subsequently ordered, were not the laws now extant. As to the verdict and procedures provided for, Ga. Laws 1977, pp. 1295-1302 applied. No change was made in that law, which added a new Code § *39027-1503, until 1982. So the law as enacted in 1977 prevailed in 1979, 1980, and 1981. That law referred to the civil commitment law contained in Code Chapter 88-5 (and 88-25 regarding mentally retarded persons and thus of no consequence here). The Code Chapter referenced was as enacted by Ga. Laws 1978, p. 1789 et seq., and as amended by Ga. Laws 1979, p. 723 et seq. The latter became effective upon approval April 12, 1979, which was prior to Reed’s commission of the acts which led to his hospitalization.
At all times relevant here, then, Code § 27-1503 provided that the person was to be “confined ... in a State mental hospital.” Further, “[a] person committed to the Department of Human Resources pursuant to this section shall not be released from confinement unless and until the court which committed him, after notice and hearing, shall find and determine that such person does not meet the criteria for civil commitment under Code Chapter 88-5. . . . Nothing in this section contained shall prevent the transfer of such person from one State hospital to any other State hospital by the Department of Human Resources or the transfer of such patient to a hospital in another state . . . (b) An application for the release of a person who has been committed to the Department of Human Resources under subsection (a), upon the ground he does not meet the civil commitment criteria under Code Chapter 88-5 or 88-25, as now or hereafter amended, may be made to the superior court . . . , either by such person or by the superintendent of the State hospital in which the said person is confined.” The section goes on to provide that no hearing shall be had until the person is “confined” at least 30 days, and that if the finding of the court is adverse to “releasing” the person on the ground he meets the civil commitment criteria, it shall not hear another application for at least one year.
The statute speaks clearly and exclusively of confinement, in a hospital, and release therefrom. The civil commitment statute, which gives the criteria to be applied by the superior court in these criminal cases, does provide for treatment in “facilities” other than hospitals, and for individualized service plans which are developed for care and treatment in the “least restrictive environment.” Thus, for the person involuntarily civilly committed, these “least restrictive alternatives” are available and may be considered by the civil commitment court. But facility is not the same thing as hospital. The Code defines “Facility” to mean “any State-owned or State-operated hospital or other facility utilized for the diagnosis, care, treatment, or hospitalization of persons who are mentally ill, any facility operated or utilized for such purpose by the United States Veterans Administration or other federal agency, and any other hospital or facility within the State of Georgia approved for such purpose by the department.” Code § 88-501 (c). Hospital is therefore a specific kind of facility.
*391The criminal statute does not use the larger term “facility” but commands that a defendant acquitted not because he did not commit the act but because he was insane or incompetent at the time, be confined in a hospital. He can be released only if he does not meet the criteria for involuntary civil commitment, which are set out in Code § 88-501 (v). The court would have no authority to depart from the plain language of the statute by which the public policy was declared to be that a person acquitted in the manner of Reed was to be confined until he no longer was a mentally ill person requiring involuntary treatment. The treatment was prescribed by the criminal statute, not the civil commitment statute which provided a number of alternatives for persons civilly committed either voluntarily or involuntarily. Reed was simply in another category; he was not civilly committed but was instead committed because he was incompetent or insane at the time he committed a criminal act. I do not believe the general authority provided to superior courts in OCGA § 15-6-9 (4) or (8) enlarges this.
3. Finally, I would not extend Bradley Center v. Wessner, 250 Ga. 199 (296 SE2d 693) (1982), as the special concurrence urges, to give rise to a legal duty flowing from defendants to appellant’s decedent here. The pastor, who voluntarily and at the request of his parishioners undertook to visit the mentally disturbed Reed some eleven months after his release from the mental hospital, was a remote person insofar as Reed was concerned. He was not a “readily identifiable” victim whom the defendants should have known might be harmed by Reed and so should have warned. If it is argued that they should have warned Reed’s family, of their own and others’ danger, the family already knew of it and in fact were even more familiar with Reed’s propensities when free, and in fact complained about it after his release. Not only was there no readily identifiable victim, the evidence is undisputed that there were no “specific threats to specific victims.” Brady v. Hopper, 570 FSupp. 1333, 1339 (N. Colo. 1983).
Appellant has not shown what legal duty of care was owed by the two social workers towards her husband or to the general public at large, arising out of their solitary encounters with Reed or with his mother and/or sister. Even if they were not immune from civil liability by way of Code § 88-502.23 because their actions were not “in connection with the admission of a patient to a facility or the discharge of a patient from a facility,” they were immune pursuant to Hennessy v. Webb, 245 Ga. 329, supra; see also Gray v. Linahan, 157 Ga. App. 227 (276 SE2d 894) (1981). The only evidence which would remove the immunity is evidence of wilful, malicious, or corrupt acts; as to this there is nothing. Dr. Brown’s affidavit is merely conclusory and states no facts which could form a basis for the jury to come to the same conclusion he did. It therefore does not constitute contrary *392evidence. But even if the social workers were not immune, what was their duty to third persons such as the pastor who visited Reed eleven months after release? Crofford had no hint of present or future violence when Reed voluntarily visited him on March 23, 1981 soon after the court order releasing him. Dunlap had no knowledge of past behavior which the family did not have, as they were his sole source of that information. They gave no indication of recent overt acts or threats which would recommend a petition for involuntary civil commitment under Georgia law, a procedure the family knew about anyway even if Dunlap did not tell them about it. Dunlap, like Crofford, was only a social worker and was not qualified to predict dangerousness as a medical expert. Considering the circumstances, what did Dunlap fail to do with respect to any duty he owed to the pastor or to the general public of which the pastor was a member? Appellant is the one who fails, by not identifying the alleged duty or giving legal authority in answer to the question.
Appellant’s real complaint is with the standards for commitment and release from confinement of persons found not guilty by reason of insanity, as those standards existed during the period in question. Despite any history of violent behavior prior to his hospitalization after the acquittal and its relationship to the predictability of future dangerousness, these are irrelevant because to continue commitment, recent overt acts or threats must have been manifested. None were.
Grigsby cannot be held liable because, even if not totally immune due to governmental immunity to begin with, or even if not immune because there are no facts upon which a jury could find wilful, malicious, or corrupt actions, he merely fulfilled a duty to report to the court the condition of Reed vis-a-vis his commitment status in accordance with the standard imposed by law in light of the federal court order. Grigsby’s duty, if he had one, to the general public at large or to the pastor in particular was superseded by the superior court order; the release was not upon the independent judgment of Grigsby or the hospital authorities, but upon the judgment of the court.
If all of the acts alleged by plaintiff were admitted, there would still be no liability for release because none of them would have prevented Reed’s right to release for being outside the definition of a commitable person, Code § 88-501 (12), in the context of the federal court order and the independent state court order. And conditional release was not an option for the court, under the law. Code § 27-1502 (b).
Even if the jury accepts as true everything that Dr. Brown testified to, there would be no liability. Dr. Brown’s opinion is that what defendants did and failed to do constituted wilful and wanton disregard of the consequences, and that if they had acted within the standard of care required in the medical community generally (Dr. Brown *393was an Alabama psychiatrist), they would not have recommended release because Reed “had the potential for violence. He was dangerous and it was foreseeable at the time of his discharge . . . that he represented a substantial danger of injury or death to persons coming in contact with him.” That is not the question. Under the law then extant, Reed could not be kept confined unless there had been “recent overt acts or recent expressed threats of violence.” There were none. Moreover, such concrete manifestations had to present a “substantial risk of imminent harm.” The test for continuing commitment was not foreseeable future dangerousness.
Decided December 20, 1985 G. Michael Agnew, for appellant. Harry Dicus, John W. Denney, Michael J. Bowers, Attorney General, James P. Googe, Jr., Executive Assistant Attorney General, H. Perry Michael, First Assistant Attorney General, Carol A. Cos-grove, Senior Assistant Attorney General, for appellees.4. It is unnecessary, then, to discuss the question of proximate cause, the third element of tort, since the record establishes that plaintiffs cannot reach this stage of the development of their complaint.
On a motion for summary judgment, “an adverse party may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of his pleading, but his response, by affidavits or as otherwise provided . . . must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” (Emphasis supplied.) OCGA § 9-11-56 (e). See Jahncke Svc. v. Dept. of Transp., 172 Ga. App. 215 (2) (322 SE2d 505) (1984). As a matter of law, there are no material facts in dispute and summary judgment was mandated.
The later history of the class action suit leaves open to question whether Reed’s release would have been mandated had the decision been able to await the final disposition of that case: modified, 678 F2d 511 (5th Cir. 1982); vacated and remanded sub nom. Ledbetter v. Benham, 463 U.S. 1222 (103 SC 3565, 77 LE2d 1406) (1983); remanded, 719 F2d 772 (5th Cir. 1983); judgment for defendant, 609 FSupp. 125 (N.D. Ga. 1985).
Under current law, a hearing is not necessary at the stage when the court is initially considering commitment, if after the 30-day evaluation following acquittal, DHR indicates that the defendant does not meet the involuntary civil commitment criteria. OCGA § 17-7-131 (e). But if the person is committed after that evaluation, the later application for release still requires a hearing, as it did under old § 27-1503. See OCGA § 17-7-131 (f). A hearing is not a vain thing, even if the hospital superintendent and the attorney general and the district attorney and the defendant all agree that the subject does not meet civil commitment criteria; they all have a. vested interest in his discharge, and the court must make an independent judgment with the protection of society and potential victims in mind. See Dubose v. State, 148 Ga. App. 9 (251 SE2d 15) (1978); Pitts v. State, 151 Ga. App. 691, 695 (261 SE2d 435) (1979). “Protection to person (and property) is the paramount duty of government. . . .” Ga. Const. 1983, Art. I, Sec. I, Par. II.
Appellant disclaims any perceived attempt to sue the state anyway, conceding that sovereign immunity would bar it.