MEDICAL BOARD RECORD—G 23521 LICENSE STATUS/DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS—LIcense Surrendered; Felony Conviction
Pled Nolo Contendere to 1 amended felony (self prescription/administration of a controlled substance). 10 months in county jail; 3 years formal probation; $200 restitution; $458 court fees.
1975 - A female patient attempted to file a police report against Levin, yet the Palo Alto police discouraged her from pursing the complaint “because Levin was a respected physician”
1987 - Levin was accused of molesting his two sons, who were the ages of 9 and 11 at the time of the assaults. He plead no contest to charges of willful cruelty and received a reduce sentence of three years probation and served a 90-day work furlough. He was also court ordered to pay his sons $180,000 for negligent emotional distress. The Medical Board took no action.
1996 - Arrested on charges of possessing child pornography of children under the age of 13, which included pictures of two young boys orally copulating each other and a male having sex with a young girl. He was also arrested on charges of providing drugs to addict and prescribing medication without examinations. At that time he temporarily had his medical license suspended.
There were also allegations that Levin was drugging and sexually assaulting female patients. There were over 20 women who came forward and it was believed at the time that there were hundreds of victims over a 20 year period. The alleged survivors sated they kept silent due to fears that Levin would blackmail them with photographs he took of them naked.
Roger Mason targeted young attractive teenage girls and young adult women who came from broken homes and who had low sense of self-esteem. One women stated that Dr. Levin invited her to live with him after she was discharged from a psychiatric hospital. The woman stated he got her hooked on drugs and forced her to have two abortions. After one of the abortions, Levin forced her to handle the dismembered body of the fetus. (LINK)
Doctor arrested on porn charges
PALO ALTO –– A doctor was in custody after police allegedly discovered pornographic images in his personal computer and a cache of explicit videos and photographs in his home.
Palo Alto police arrested internist Roger Mason Levin, 51, at his Menlo Park house Friday after a seven-month investigation.
“There are indications that other people are involved,” Police detective Michael Yore said. "it’s a huge case.“
Levin also was being charged with allegedly falsifying drug prescriptions for himself and his patients. (LINK) — 09/09/1996
Police Comb Internet for Suspect’s Porn Source
Police are hoping to track down the Internet sources of hundreds of images of child pornography allegedly downloaded from a Palo Alto doctor’s personal computers following his arrest on sex and drug charges, investigators said yesterday.
Dr. Roger M. Levin, 51, an internist and surgeon, was arrested late last week and is free in lieu of $ 250,000 bail, pending his arraignment on September 20 in Palo Alto Municipal Court.
He is charged with eight felony and misdemeanor charges, including possession of obscene material depicting children under 14, providing drugs to an addict, prescribing drugs before an examination, obtaining narcotics by fraud and falsifying drug prescriptions.
Levin’s license to practice medicine in California has been temporarily suspended by the state medical board, pending an administrative hearing by the board.
Levin was taken into custody after a seven-month investigation by Palo Alto police, prompted by an armed robbery of the doctor’s office in February that raised suspicions Levin might be involved in illegal activities.
The gunman, according to a police affidavit, asked for Levin by name and seemed more interested in talking clandestinely with the doctor in a back room than in taking money from the office.
In a search of Levin’s Menlo Park home last week, Palo Alto police turned up hundreds of photographs of children and nude women, some of which appeared to have been downloaded and others that appeared to have been taken in his home, according to court documents.
’‘We want to talk to more people to determine how and where the images were transmitted from,” said Palo Alto Detective Sergeant Dennis Burns. He noted that downloading pornography is a crime.
The material allegedly included pictures of two young boys orally copulating each other and a male having sex with a young girl.
Burns said police were aided by a Department of Motor Vehicles computer expert and two retired Silicon Valley executives in cracking a computer code in one of Levin’s home computers, which investigators say he had encrypted to prevent access to the alleged pornographic images. The two former computer firm executives are continuing to help authorities in the investigation.
Court documents include allegations that Levin drugged women, including at least a few who came to him as patients, so that he could have sex with them.
Levin could not be reached for comment yesterday, but his attorney, Michael Gaines of Larkspur, noted that the “more sensational” pornography charge is a misdemeanor and does not involve sale or distribution of the pictures.
Gaines added that some of his client’s troubles with the law may stem from a “long, acrimonious” divorce dispute with his former wife, (NAME REMOVED). The couple was divorced several years ago, but court records show she has assisted police in pursuing the current investigation.
In 1987, Levin was accused of sexual molestation by his two sons, ages 9 and 11 at the time, but later pleaded no contest in San Mateo County Superior Court to a reduced charge of willful cruelty. He was sentenced to three years probation and served a 90-day work furlough sentence.
Later, Levin’s former wife filed a civil suit in behalf of the couple’s sons alleging sexual battery. After a series of mistrials, a judge ordered Levin to pay his sons $ 180,000 for negligent emotional distress. (LINK) — 10/10/1996
Physician arrested on drug charges
Palo Alto physician also found with child pornography
A Palo Alto physician was arrested Sept. 6 and charged with illegally prescribing drugs to himself and family members.
Roger Mason Levin, 51, who lives in Menlo Park and, until recently, had an office on Cowper Street in downtown Palo Alto, was booked on suspicion of four felonies and four misdemeanor charges and was released last weekend on a $250,000 bail bond.
Levin was charged with three felony counts of issuing drugs illegally and one felony count of obtaining drugs by fraud.
Levin also was charged with providing drugs to a drug addict, prescribing drugs before an examination, and self-prescribing drugs, which are misdemeanors.
In a search warrant executed June 5 at Levin’s home, police also seized two computers which had “thousands and thousands” of child pornography photographs, said Detective Jim Coffman.
Levin, an internist, had an office at 611 Cowper St. in Palo Alto. None of the charges against Levin involve patients, Coffman said, except for prescribing drugs to a longtime girlfriend.
Police began investigating Levin after he reported a robbery at his Cowper Street office in February. Coffman said some of the facts of that case, which remains unsolved, raised officers’ suspicions that something was amiss. Shortly after that, Coffman said, Palo Alto police received a call from an investigator for the state medical board and were told it also was investigating Levin.
Palo Alto Detective Mike Yore then spent six months working with state medical investigators on the case.
Levin surrendered his license to practice medicine after the June 5 searches of his office and his home.
“The state medical board had people giving them information, and we were able to talk to other people,” Coffman said. “There was enough probable cause to get the computers included on the search warrant.”
Possession of child pornography photographs is a misdemeanor, Coffman said. But Levin could face federal felony charges if he downloaded the images across state lines, or if he transmitted images himself.
This was not the first time Levin had had a run-in with the law. Levin was arrested in 1987 and charged with having sex with two boys, ages 9 and 14. He later pleaded guilty to a reduced charge of endangering a child, but also reportedly paid $30,000 each to the families of the two boys to settle a later civil lawsuit arising from the arrest.
However, Levin was able to retain his license to practice medicine.
The state medical board has since issued a temporary restraining order prohibiting Levin from practicing medicine in California.
Anyone with information is asked to call Detective Mike Yore at 329-2558. (LINK) — 9/11/1996
Doctor Abuse Case Continues to Grow Cops Say 20 More Cite Sex Misconduct
“Jane Doe”, 17, hastily put on her clothes and darted from the doctor’s office, tears streaming down her blue eyes.
She had wanted Dr. Roger Mason Levin to treat her chronic abdominal cramps. Instead, she said, the Palo Alto internist gave her a lengthy rectal exam, insisted on a pelvic exam, then touched her breasts and squeezed her nipples while "telling me how pretty my eyes were.”
“Jane Doe”’s mother shouted "Oh my God!” upon hearing her daughter’s ordeal in October 1993; she suddenly recalled her own, similar appointment 14 years earlier. With the same doctor.
Their complaints, along with others in police reports and court documents, led to the loss of Levin’s medical license and the criminal in vestigation that resulted in his Sept. 6 arrest.
Since then, according to police, at least 20 alleged victims have come forward with stories of sexual abuse by Levin that go back more than 20 years. Still, the case against Levin continues to grow, with possibly hundreds of victims, said Palo Alto police Detective Michael Yore.
Levin, 51, of Menlo Park, is free on bail, waiting to enter a plea Friday on eight felony and misdemeanor counts, including charges that he prescribed narcotics when there was no medical need. Through his attorneys, he declined requests for interviews. Levin’s attorneys have told police that drugs were stolen from his client’s office, Yore said. The attorneys also said, in an interview shortly after Levin’s arrest, that Levin merely was accused of possessing child pornography, a felony, not distributing it.
In interviews with the Mercury News and in court statements, a handful of his alleged victims said they kept silent when they should have complained about Levin. Some of these witnesses said they feared no one would believe them; they were frightened that Levin would blackmail them with photographs he secretly took of them naked. Some feared his attorneys and, according to court documents, at least one woman reportedly filed a report around 1975, but Palo Alto police discouraged her from pursuing the complaint “because Levin was a respected physician.”
Faced at least 3 lawsuits
Court records show Levin has faced at least three lawsuits alleging sexual misconduct against women and children since the 1980s, including a former assistant in his Cowper Street office. Other alleged victims told investigators years after being abused that Levin settled their claims before lawsuits were filed.
“His medical license has given him access to people’s bodies, their private lives, all of which he penetrates and violates,” one victim told the Mercury News. “The license has not only enabled him, but protected him.”
Some, like “Jane Doe”, are eager to testify against Levin, in part because of the outcome of a previous investigation that some say failed to punish him. In 1987, Levin was arrested on suspicion of felony child molestation, including charges that he inserted his finger in boys’ rectums. His attorneys negotiated a plea bargain that reduced the charges to a single misdemeanor. He served a work-furlough sentence, and the medical board took no action.
"I just want to make sure this time he lands his butt in jail for the rest of his life,” said (Name Removed), 20, who is now married.
Another is a 21-year-old woman who is suing Levin and asking for the doctor to pay for long-term therapy. “Mary Doe” is not related to the doctor, but in his quest to manipulation, she said, he urged her to legally change her name.
"Mary Doe” met Dr. Levin when she was 19 and he was 49. She claimed the doctor invited her to live with him immediately after her release from a psychiatric hospital. Her suit, scheduled for trial next month, claims Levin got her hooked on drugs and forced her to abort two pregnancies.
After one abortion, according to an investigator’s report, Levin had her handle the dismembered body of the fetus.
Her attorney, John Winer of San Francisco, said "Mary Doe” was perfect prey for the doctor - attractive, young, fragile, from a broken home and with low self-esteem. She was needy.
"Mary Doe” is one of few people who claimed to have seen a private room in his house. The room was "knee deep” with everything from pictures of autopsies to obscene videotapes of children. Yore said police seized computers containing child pornography from the same room. She left him after an emotional breakdown.
One former patient came forward to Palo Alto police to say that she’d been fondled by Levin during an exam 23 years earlier, when the doctor was in a medical practice on Welch Road.
“He was a nice guy,” said the woman, who asked that she not be identified. “He paid attention to me; he was very charming, and I was a very lonely 16-year-old girl.” Levin would take her to lunch, and even drive her home after appointments.
But then it happened: Levin ordered his nurse to take a lunch break, then he allegedly fondled the girl’s breasts.
The girl told her mother about “strange things going on at the doctor’s office,” but she wasn’t specific. And she didn’t tell authorities until she heard of Levin’s arrest last month.
“It blew my mind. I thought I was the only one,” she said. Her case may or may not hold up in criminal court, depending on how many other victims police find within the three-year statute of limitations.
Police claim pattern
Still, police and prosecutors could use her allegations and those of other victims who have yet to come forward in an attempt to show a pattern they contend Levin established.
Levin’s sexual misconduct started well before his medical career, according to court documents.
As a youngster, he placed obscene phone calls, according to a statement filed by his ex-wife in court documents. After graduating from medical school at the University of California, San Francisco, he enrolled in a dermatology residency at Stanford University. But he was thrown out before its completion for taking “inappropriate pictures,” according to court documents.
Another former patient, a local health-field professional who requested anonymity, said she wondered about Levin’s motivations when she saw him for a physical checkup and he commented on her perfume.
Indeed, court records allege that Levin wrote information about patients’ perfume in their medical records.
The former patient’s husband, and her father-in-law, told of unusual anecdotes when treated by the same doctor. On separate occasions, after examining them, Levin allegedly said to each: “The good news is, you don’t have syphilis or gonorrhea.”
Levin became the subject of a police investigation in February after he reported a robber bolted into his office and held him at gunpoint. Nobody was injured and only petty cash was taken. But during the investigation, police bumped into a medical board investigator looking into sex and drug allegations, Yore said.
The formal accusation that suspended Levin’s license, culminating a two-year investigation, was filed in Santa Clara County Superior Court on July 31. The reported robbery remains unsolved.
Earlier this year, with investigators closing in, Levin hired a psychiatrist, Dr. Mark Levy, to perform an evaluation.
Levy concluded Levin suffered from depression and had become incompetent to practice medicine, according to a summary of Levy’s report filed in court. The summary did not specify which, if either of the two traumatic events, were affecting Levin the most: the robbery or the investigation.
Levin offered to surrender the license. The medical board moved to suspend it.
Levin’s license will be invalid until he requests a hearing, Deputy Attorney General Ronald Thunen Jr. said. The board could then move to have Levin’s license revoked, or Levin could request it be reissued.
Levin likely will await the outcome of his criminal case before deciding whether to request the hearing.
In a June 23 letter he sent to patients, Levin said: “I regret to inform you that I will be discontinuing the practice of internal medicine for the foreseeable future, although I eventually hope to return.” (LINK) — 10/08/1996
Doctor Enters Plea Deal Dismisses 7 Other Charges
Roger M. Levin, the Palo Alto doctor who faced charges of possessing child pornography and issuing unlawful drug prescriptions, has pleaded no contest to a single charge of illegally prescribing himself drugs.
The plea bargain made this week with the Santa Clara County District Attorney’s Office is conditional on the promise that Levin will face no more than a year in county jail, according to court records.
The deal – which wipes out seven separate charges involving illegal drug prescriptions for patients and possession of child pornography – apparently will not open any doors for Levin’s once respected medical career.
And the plea bargain has not deterred a multimillion dollar civil suit by a 21-year-old woman who claims that two years ago she was repeatedly drugged by Levin.
“(Her) concern was that justice would be done, both criminally and civilly,” said her attorney, John Winer. “Unfortunately, what happens in the criminal case is out of her hands. What happens in the civil case, she does have control over and she intends to pursue Dr. Levin until she is fully compensated for the injuries he caused her.”
Through his attorney, Joseph Hoffman, Levin told the Medical Board of California this week that he does not plan to ask for the reinstatement of his medical license, said Ron Thunen, a California deputy attorney general. The license, which allows Levin to practice internal medicine, has been indefinitely suspended by the state board since July 1996, he said.
“I can tell you Dr. Levin has no current intention of seeking to go back to the practice of medicine anytime soon,” Thunen said. “All (the medical board) cares about is protection of the public, and the public is being protected (from Levin).”
Thunen said that Levin has a right to ask for a hearing to obtain his license again, but that if he does so, the medical board would probably seek to have his license permanently revoked.
As for the plea bargain – Santa Clara County deputy district attorney Michelle McKay-McCoy said that a stipulation issued by the judge means that the dismissed charges may still be considered for sentencing purposes.
Levin had faced three counts of issuing prescriptions without dental cause for Diazepam, Halcion and Percodan (tranquilizers and painkillers); possession of obscene material depicting a person under the age of 14; providing drugs to an addict; and prescribing drugs before a medical examination.
“I didn’t feel that it would have made an appreciable difference” to try Levin on the additional seven charges,“ said McKay-McCoy. "Those charges do matter because they are based on actual fact. But in his sentencing, even if he pleaded guilty on all of the charges it wouldn’t have made a difference.”
Civil suit pending
The woman who has a civil suit against Levin is asking for the doctor to pay for long-term therapy. The suit charges invasion of privacy, negligence, false imprisonment, assault and battery.
While a dollar amount was not attached to the suit, her attorney said, “I have received $7 million verdicts in similar cases. This case has that potential.”
The woman met Levin when she was 19 and he was 49. She claimed the doctor invited her to live with him immediately after her release from a psychiatric hospital. Her suit claims, among other things, Levin got her hooked on drugs and forced her to abort two pregnancies.
After one abortion, according to an investigator’s report, Levin caused her to believe she should “divide” the fetus up so that he could have a part and she would have a part, according to the civil suit.
The woman is also one of few people who claimed to have seen a private room in his house. The room was “knee deep” with everything from pictures of autopsies to obscene videotapes of children, police said.
The civil suit claims Levin should have know how much damage his alleged actions would have on a young patient.
Levin, now 52, has declined requests for interviews. However, his attorneys have told police that drugs were stolen from his client’s office.
Other accusations
Others feared Levin’s attorneys and, according to court documents, at least one woman reportedly filed a report around 1975, but Palo Alto police discouraged her from pursuing the complaint “because Levin was a respected physician.”
Court records show Levin has faced at least three lawsuits alleging sexual misconduct against women and children since the 1980s, including a former assistant in his Cowper Street office. Other alleged victims told investigators years after being abused that Levin settled their claims before lawsuits were filed.
McKay-McCoy said the sex-related charges were not filed by her because none of them met the statute of limitations, which for most felonies is three years. She said the most recent allegations were before 1994.
“The police did a great investigation … We were just out of luck,” McKay-McCoy said. (LINK) —
Palo Alto doctor sentenced
Levin receives 10 months in jail for illegally prescribing drugs to himself
Dr. Roger Levin, a former Palo Alto physician who was arrested last year on charges of illegal drug prescription and possessing child pornography, was sentenced Friday to 10 months in jail.
Levin, 52, received a reduced sentence after agreeing to plead guilty to one count of illegally prescribing the painkiller Halcion to himself. In exchange, eight further charges of possessing child pornography and prescribing drugs illegally to patients were dropped.
According to Deputy District Attorney Michelle McCay-McCoy, all charges were taken into account at the time of sentencing, although some allegations filed in a police report could not be pursued because of the statute of limitations.
Levin’s sentence in Santa Clara County jail isn’t due to start until Dec. 29, 1997. According to McCay-McCoy, if he is accepted, Levin will take part in a work furlough program permitted by Judge LaDoris Cordell.
Under the terms of his sentence, Levin will be on probation for three years and, among other conditions, he is ordered not to live under the same roof as any person below the age of 18, said McCay-McCoy.
Levin lost his license to practice medicine in June 1996 and is currently unemployed. He has been free on bond since his arrest in September 1996.
Levin, who practiced internal medicine from Cowper Street in downtown Palo Alto, also faces a civil suit filed by a 21-year-old woman who claims that the doctor prescribed her drugs repeatedly until she became addicted. (LINK) — 10/24/1997
MEDICAL BOARD RECORD—G 41187 LICENSE STATUS/DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS—License Revoked
Note: No mention in the first two news articles of Hurd’s prior position as a doctor or of having his license revoked twice for sexual assault.
Sex crime plea could lead to life sentence: San Mateo man busted after undercover operation
A 63-year-old San Mateo resident may spend life in prison after pleading no contest Tuesday to a sex crime against a small child, according to the San Mateo County District Attorney’s Office.
Steven Hurd pleaded no contest to felony sexual acts with a child 10 years old or younger on the second day of a jury trial, resolving the case before jurors were chosen, prosecutors said.
The investigation began in early January 2009 when an undercover San Mateo police officer called Hurd’s massage business near the Hillsdale Shopping Center to make an appointment, prosecutors said.
The officer negotiated a price and set up a one-hour massage with Hurd, who directed her to meet him at his apartment, according to prosecutors.
Inside the apartment, the officer undressed and got on the massage table. During the massage, Hurd said “yummy” and “oh yeah,” prosecutors said.
Two times, Hurd massaged the side of the officer’s breast and three times took her hand and moved it across his erect penis, according to prosecutors.
Police then came to the door and arrested Hurd for sexual battery, prosecutors said.
Officers searching Hurd’s cellphone found several photos of him massaging other women, prosecutors said.
Another video on the phone showed a 2-year-old girl putting her mouth on Hurd’s penis three times. Hurd filmed the video himself and told the girl to do it “one more time,” prosecutors said.
Hurd admitted to the acts and admitted they were wrong, according to prosecutors.
Police also found six photos in his apartment of underage girls in sexual positions, prosecutors said.
Hurd will have to register as a sex offender for life, according to prosecutors. A judge will impose Hurd’s sentence Oct. 20, prosecutors said.
The attorney for Hurd, Paul Demeester, was not immediately available for comment. (LINK) — 08/29/2015
Masseur gets 15 to life for molesting 2-year-old girl
An unlicensed masseur accused of recording himself performing a sexual act with a 2-year-old girl and groping an undercover police officer investigating his business was sentenced to 15 years to life in prison Tuesday, according to the San Mateo County District Attorney’s Office.
Steven Morris Hurd, 63, was charged with three counts of performing a sexual act with a child 10 years or younger, one count of felony possession of child pornography, one count of possessing matter depicting a child under 18, one count of possessing Vicodin without a prescription and five counts of misdemeanor sexual battery.
Police arrested Hurd in 2009 after a female officer posing as a client at his Edison Street home reported that during the course of treatment he made multiple sexual comments, groped her and forced her to grope him.
A subsequent search of the home allegedly turned up a cellphone with nude women involved in sexual conduct with Hurd and video of a female toddler and Hurd involved in a sexual act on three separate occasions. The Daily Journal is not naming the relationship of the girl to Hurd to protect her identity.
Hurd was given credit serving nearly seven years of his sentence in county jail.
He is not eligible for parole, however, until he serves 15 years in state prison. (LINK) — 10/21/2015
From Medical Board of California Documents (excerpted):
In December 1997, respondent’s (Steven Hurd) physician’s and surgeon’s certificate was disciplined by the Medical Board. Respondent was placed on four years’ probation subject to numerous terms and conditions. Respondent’s compliance with the probationary terms was spotty at best. As a result, in March 2000, an accusation and petition to revoke probation was filed, alleging that respondent had failed to comply with specified terms of probation, that he had committed additional acts that independently warranted disciplining his certificate, and that his ability to practice medicine safely is impaired because he is mentally ill.
Following a hearing in July 2000, the undersigned administrative law judge issued a proposed decision that was subsequently rejected by the Division of Medical Quality in September. In October, complainant (Medical Board) filed a supplemental accusation and petition to revoke probation, alleging that respondent had engaged in a number of unprofessional and dishonest acts, including acts of sexual misconduct with a patient, that he had continued to fail to comply with the terms of probation, and that his ability to practice medicine safely is impaired because he is mentally ill. In November, the Division remanded the original accusation and petition to revoke probation to the administrative law judge for the taking of additional evidence, ordering that matter consolidated with the supplemental accusation and petition to revoke probation.
In an accusation filed in September 1995 and a first amended accusation filed in July 1997, in Case Nos. 12-92-20978, 12-92-20959, 12-93-25584, 12-94-34727, 12-96-70004 and 12-97-79533, respondent was charged with making lewd and offensive telephone calls to a patient in 1991, fondling the breasts of another patient during a neck and back disability examination in 1992, and making sexually inappropriate and harassing comments to a medical office co-worker in 1992. Respondent was also charged with misrepresenting his orthopedic qualifications to the Department of Industrial Relations when applying for a Qualified Medical Examiner appointment in 1991 by forging various certificates of experience, misrepresenting his orthopedic and chiropractic qualifications to a patient and her insurance carrier in 1992, and misrepresenting his orthopedic and chiropractic qualifications in his curriculum vitae and in a deposition during a workers’ compensation case in 1994.
In a stipulation and waiver signed in October 1997, respondent admitted that adequate factual and legal basis and cause existed to discipline his certificate on the various allegations of misrepresentation of his qualifications. No admissions were made concerning the sexually-related charges. Respondent stipulated that cause for disciplinary action against him existed pursuant to Business and Professions Code sections 2234 (unprofessional conduct), 2234(a) (violating provisions of the Medical Practice Act), 2234(e) (acts involving dishonesty or corruption), 2234(±) (conduct which would have warranted denial of a certificate), 2261 (knowingly making or signing any certificate or other document related to the practice of medicine which falsely represented the existence or nonexistence of a state of facts), 22 71 (false or misleading advertising) and 2274 (the use of any certificate indicating entitlement to engage in a medical practice for which one is not licensed).
On November 13, 1997, the Division of Medical Quality (Division) adopted the stipulation and waiver as its decision and order, which became effective on December 15, 1997. Pursuant to the stipulation, respondent’s certificate was revoked, the revocation was stayed and respondent was placed on probation for four years.
During the first two years of probation, respondent’s compliance with the terms of condition was spotty at best. As a result, on March 29, 2000, complainant filed an accusation and petition to revoke probation. It alleged that cause existed to revoke respondent’s probation because he willfully and continually violated probationary conditions.
On April 10, 2000, complainant filed a petition for interim suspension of respondent’s certificate based on the same allegations set forth in the accusation and petition to revoke probation. The interim suspension order (ISO) hearing was held on May 1, 2000. On May 15,2000, Administrative Law Judge Ruth S. Astle issued a decision in which she found that as of April 10, 2000, “respondent was not in substantial compliance with any of the listed terms and conditions of his probation except that he had been evaluated by a Board sanctioned psychiatrist. … ” She further found that respondent had “finally taken this matter seriously” and had begun to take “serious steps to comply with the terms and conditions of his probation.” Respondent’s certificate was not suspended, but he was restricted to continue practicing only in “his present employment with a chaperone present whenever respondent has a female patient.”
A hearing on the accusation and petition to revoke probation was held on July 10, 2000. A proposed decision was issued on August 3. That proposed decision was rejected by the Division and a Notice of Non-Adoption was issued on September 15.
On October 3, 2000, complainant filed a first supplemental petition for interim suspension of respondent’s certificate alleging that cause for discipline against respondent existed because: in August and September 2000 respondent had treated Patient M., a 25-year-old woman, without the presence of a third party or chaperone; he had committed acts of sexual misconduct and/or sexual assault against Patient M. at one treatment session; he had continued to violate the terms of his probation; he had failed to disclose locations where he was working; he had lied about his qualifications; and he refused to speak to his probation officer. On October 4, Administrative Law Judge Astle issued an order immediately suspending respondent’s certificate pending an ISO hearing on the supplemental petition. Following an ISO hearing held on October 18, Judge Astle issued an order suspending respondent’s certificate pending a full hearing on the merits of complainant’s allegations.
On October 30, 2000, complainant filed a first supplemental accusation and petition to revoke probation. It alleged that additional causes for disciplinary action against respondent existed based upon his conduct with Patient M. in August and September 2000. In particular, respondent was charged with committing unprofessional and/or dishonest and corrupt acts by improperly touching intimate areas of Patient M.’s body, by failing to utilize a chaperone or third party presence when he treated her and by improperly eroticizing the treatment setting. Respondent was also charged with additional acts of unprofessional conduct and/or dishonesty and corruption by misrepresenting his qualifications at the July 10 administrative hearing and at an Alameda County civil trial on August 17, 2000; and by failing to disclose in a declaration filed on April 27, 2000, at the July 10 administrative hearing or to his Board probation officer his employment by Stephen T. Skarda, D.C. It was further re-alleged that respondent’s ability to practice medicine safely is impaired because he is mentally ill. Finally, it was alleged that as of October 18, 2000 respondent was still not in compliance with numerous conditions of probation.
Patient M.
In early August 2000, Patient M., a 25-year-old woman who was then about five months pregnant, became a patient at the South San Francisco Medical Group, a clinic co-owned by Joseph Scannell, D.C. Patient M. had suffered back and neck injuries in an automobile accident. At her first visit to the clinic, on August 3, Patient M. received some chiropractic treatment from Dr. Scannell, who then introduced her to respondent. Dr. Scannell told Patient M. that respondent would do an evaluation of her. Dr. Scannell left the examining room, leaving respondent alone in the room with Patient M. and her five-year-old daughter. Respondent spent around 20 minutes with Patient M., performing range of motion tests and asking her a series of questions. Respondent never told Patient M. that he was on probation to the Medical Board or that he was required to have a chaperone present when treating female patients. Respondent’s testimony to the contrary was unconvincing.
Patient M. continued to receive chiropractic treatment from Dr. Scannell. Around August 8, Patient M. called the office to reschedule her appointment with Dr. Scannell. She spoke to respondent, who told her to come in for a “Med Spa” treatment. Patient M. understood this to be a form of medical treatment. Dr. Scannell was not at the clinic when Patient M. arrived at about 4:00p.m. For the Med Spa treatment Patient M. wore a medical gown over her bra and underpants. Patient M. was alone in the treatment room with respondent. Respondent had her lay face down on the table. He scrubbed and massaged Patient M.’s shoulders and back, using both his hands and a massager. He used scented oils. At one point, respondent asked Patient M.’s permission to unhook her bra. She consented. Without her consent, respondent slightly pulled down Patient M.’s underpants to massage her lower back. She did not feel this action was inappropriate. Respondent told Patient M. that the treatment he had given her was not a full Med Spa and told her she could have the full treatment whenever she wanted.
At a visit to Dr. Scannell on August 31, Patient M. was again referred to respondent for a range of motion evaluation. Once more, no chaperone was present inthe exam room while respondent conducted this evaluation.
On September 5, Dr. Scannell called Patient M. to cancel her appointment. Later in the day, Patient M. received messages from respondent asking her to come in at 8:00p.m. for a Med Spa treatment. Patient M. did not go. Respondent called her again the next day asking her to come in for a Med Spa treatment. On September 6, Patient M. arrived at the clinic at about 4:30 p.m. for a full Med Spa treatment. Dr. Scannell was not present at the clinic. Respondent gave Patient M. a bathrobe and asked her to shower, directing her to the shower and turning the water on for her. After the shower, Patient M. put on her bra and underpants. She changed from the robe to a medical gown. Respondent again had Patient M. lay face down on the table. Music was playing and a candle was lit. The lights were turned down.
Respondent massaged and exfoliated Patient M.’s neck and upper back. He used hot packs, a massager and oils. He asked permission to unhook Patient M.’s bra and she agreed. As he moved to her lower back, respondent asked Patient M.’s permission to remove her underpants. Before she could answer, respondent pulled off Patient M.’s pants. He scrubbed and massaged Patient M.’s legs, then moved to her buttocks. He spread the cheeks of her buttocks and during the treatment rubbed and massaged both her anal and vaginal areas with his hands. Patient M. was fearful and apprehensive but said nothing. At one point, respondent spread Patient M.’s legs and pushed a towel under her pubic area. He later pulled the towel out, rubbing her vaginal area. Respondent used the massager on Patient M.’s buttocks and legs. He poured warm water over her back to rinse off the oils and creams he had used. Respondent asked Patient M. if she wanted him to wax the hair in the crack of her buttocks. She declined. Respondent dried her with towels, applied a lotion and told her she was done. When the treatment was completed, respondent was red-faced and breathing heavily. Patient M. dressed quickly and left. As she was leaving she noted that respondent had changed his pants.
Patient M. was upset by what had occurred during the Med Spa, but she did not know what to do. She did not tell her husband what had happened. The next day, she had an appointment with Dr. Scannell. She intended to tell him what had happened but did not do so because respondent was “hanging around.” On the following day, September 8, Patient M. had an appointment with her obstetrician/gynecologist. Patient M. told her doctor what had happened. The doctor advised Patient M. to call the police. That afternoon, according to the police report, Patient M. complained to the South San Francisco Police Department “that she was sexually assaulted by her orthopedic surgeon.”
On the evening of September 8, respondent voluntarily agreed to be interviewed by a South San Francisco police officer. Respondent told the officer that Patient M. had been a patient of his for about three weeks and that he had seen her three times for treatment of a back and neck injury. When she arrived at around 5:15 p.m. on September 6 for a Med Spa treatment, there was no one in the office but the two of them. Respondent described the Med Spa treatment. It begins with a manual massage to identify “trigger points"—areas of tension or muscle damage. Next, respondent uses a"GK-5” percussion device—a vibrating massager—to help relieve muscle tension. Then he performs a full skin exfoliation followed by a “baste rinse,” which consists of applying damp heated towels to parts of the body that have been treated with manual massage or the GK-5. After removing the towels, a peach astringent is rubbed on the body. The final step is rinsing with warm water. Respondent told the officer that the Med Spa was not a recognized orthopedic treatment, but that he was hoping to have it published in medical journals. When asked what portion ofthe treatment is medical, respondent pointed to the manual and GK-5 massages. The balance of the treatment, he said, is for hygienic and therapeutic reasons.
On September 21, 2000, the South San Francisco Police Department had Patient M. place a pretext telephone call to respondent. The call was recorded by the police. Almost immediately after the call began Patient M. became quite emotional and made a number of outrageous and unfounded allegations against respondent. While respondent asserts that this phone call shows that Patient M. has falsely accused him of misconduct during the Med Spa treatment, the phone call does not undermine the patient’s basic credibility. The story Patient M. told to the police department on September 8 was entirely consistent with her testimony at the hearing. None of the outlandish allegations the patient made during the pretext call have been made by her in any other context, and she has never seriously asserted that any of those allegations were, in fact, true.
Respondent’s conduct with Patient M. in relation to the Med Spa treatment on September 6, 2000 was also dishonest and corrupt. Respondent performed this procedure under the guise of providing therapeutic treatment when, in fact, it is apparent that his true motivation was his own sexual gratification.
There can be no doubt that respondent has not substantially complied with the probationary terms which became effective on December 15, 1997. The evidence is clear that prior to the ISO hearing on May 1, 2000, respondent had barely complied with any of the probationary terms. It appears that respondent made some initial attempts to comply with probation-filing his initial quarterly reports (albeit always late), submitting the names of proposed psychiatric evaluators and chaperones and attempting to find a practice monitor-but then compliance ceased almost entirely until the time of the ISO hearing. At the time of that first ISO hearing respondent appeared to “get religion.” As Judge Astle found, respondent had begun to take the matter seriously and was taking “serious steps to comply with the terms and conditions of his probation.” But respondent’s efforts towards compliance were both short-lived and inconsequential. At the present time he remains in violation of virtually every significant condition of probation.
Cause for disciplinary action against respondent exists pursuant to Business and Professions Code section 822 in that it is determined that respondent’s ability to practice medicine safely is impaired because he is mentally ill. While there was a time when expert evaluators felt respondent would be able to safely practice medicine with some restrictions, that is no longer the case. Respondent’s recent behavior has demonstrated that because of his mental condition he “cannot and does not conform his behavior to professional standards of practice, patients’ rights and the law.” Respondent’s ability to safely practice medicine is clearly impaired due to his mental condition.
Certificate No. G 41187 issued to respondent Steven Morris Hurd, M.D.,is revoked pursuant to Legal Conclusions 3, 4 and 5, separately and for each of them. (LINK) — 03/21/2001
Pled nolo contendere to 1 count 729(B)-Sexual exploitation by a physician or surgeon. Imposition of sentence suspended; 5 years formal probation with terms and conditions to include: 200 hours community service, $200 restitution.
From Medical Board of California documents:
Sexual Assault
a. In or about June 2000, respondent hired Patient D.W. as the office manager in his medical office in Los Angeles where he practices obstetrics and gynecology. In July and August 2000, respondent examined Patient D. W. on several occasions for a bladder infection, acne, and yeast infection. Respondent prescribed said patient with medication for the yeast infection.
b. On or about August 28, 2000, respondent examined Patient D.W. for a yeast infection because the patient requested more medication for the condition. During the course of his examination, respondent told the patient “everything looked good”. Respondent then placed his lips on the patient’s vaginal area and kissed her above the clitoris.
7. The Declaration of Detective John Wong sets forth the following additional facts in this matter:
a. On August 29,2000, Detective Wong interviewed Patient D.W. The patient related to the detective the above-described incident with respondent in his medical office.
b. On September 6, 2000, Detective Wong interviewed respondent. Respondent indicated he told the patient that her yeast infection had cleared but that the patient did not appear to believe him. Respondent stated to the detective that he kissed the patient on herclitoral area to prove to her that her vagina was clean. (LINK) — 05/08/2001
A. On or about September 15, 2000, a complaint was filed in the matter entitled People v. Charles Phillip Loeb, III, Case No. BA2071 01, in the Municipal Court of California, County ofLos Angeles, charging respondent with having committed the crime of oral copulation [victim unconscious of the nature of the act] in violation ofPenal Code section 288a, subdivision (f), a felony (Count 1 ); the crime of sexual battery by restraint in violation of Penal Code section 243.4, subdivision (a), a felony (Count 2); and the crime of sexual exploitation by a physician and surgeon in violation of Business and Professions Code section 729, subdivision (b), a felony (Count 3).
B. On or about June 5, 2001, respondent was convicted pursuant to a plea of nolo contendere of sexual exploitation in violation of Penal Code section 729, subdivision (b), a felony, as charged in Count 3. Counts 1 and 2 were dismissed due to the plea negotiation. Respondent’s plea was certified to the Superior Court of Los Angeles Judicial District, County of Los Angeles, State of California.
C. The Superior Court ordered that the imposition of sentence be suspended. Respondent was placed on formal probation for a period of five (5) years with various terms and conditions. Those terms and conditions included the requirements that respondent perform 200 hours of community service; pay a restitution fine in the amount of $200; attend a minimum of one year of counseling for sex offenders; not have any contact with patients during his probationary period; obey all laws and orders ofthe court; and comply with other terms and conditions. The court also ordered that there would be no reduction to a misdemeanor during the probationary period.
7. Respondent is subject to disciplinary action for having committed acts of sexual misconduct or abuse ofPatient D.W. in violation of sections 726 and 2234 ofthe Code. Such violation is based upon his unprofessional conduct as alleged herein and in Paragraph 5 of this Accusation, which is incorporated herein by reference.
Respondent also sexually abused another female patient, Patient K.G., on or about September 15, 1997. After examining Patient K.G. regarding a urinary tract infection and when respondent was leaving the examination room, he grabbed and squeezed one of Patient K.G.’s breasts.
Medical Negligence
A. On or about December 3, 1996, Patient M.C., a 58-year-old female, had her first visit with respondent. Patient M.C. had a history of postmenopausal bleeding (i.e., bleeding from her vagina) and was referred by her treating physician to respondent for evaluation regarding a dilatation and curettage (“D&C”). The patient also had a history of asthma, diabetes, hypertension, headaches, and ulcerative proctitis (i.e., inflammation of the mucous membrane of the rectum as well as rectal bleeding). The surgical operations that the patient has had include a tubal ligation, an appendectomy, and a cesarean section. Patient M.C. has had five full term deliveries and no abortions. Her last normal menstrual period was on or about December 3, 1987.
B. During that initial office visit with respondent on or about December 3, 1996, it was noted on a history and physical examination form that the patient had complaints of bleeding [postmenopausal bleeding] for two months; that her blood pressure was 160/80; that her height was 5’5"; and that she weighed 209 pounds. There were no positive findings on examination of her skin, head, neck, chest, abdomen, extremities, external genitalia, vagina, cervix, and uterus. Respondent documented that he did not examine the patient’s adnexae and rectum. Respondent ordered a Pap smear, an evaluation for GC and chlamydia, and a general health screen. The patient was an insulin dependent diabetic.
C. Patient M.C. was next seen by respondent on or about December 9, 1996. She was scheduled for a dilatation and curettage two days thereafter. Her glucose or blood sugar level was noted as 506, which is extremely high (normal glucose range: 60 to 120). There was no documentation of any effort by respondent to have this critical blood sugar value corrected, to contact the patient’s referring physician about the patient’s glucose or to refer the patient for an internal medicine consultation. There is no indication in the medical records concerning this patient that respondent ever had the patient’s diabetes properly evaluated or controlled before any of his operations on the patient.
D. The laboratory printout reprinted on or about December 11, 1996, showed that the patient had a slightly abnormal liver function. The . triglycerides were elevated. There was sugar, protein, blood, and yeast cells in the patient’s urine on or about December 3, 1996. The Pap smear showed no columnar epithelium.
E. On or about December 11, 1996, respondent performed a diagnostic dilatation and curettage on Patient M.C. at Los Angeles Metropolitan Medical Center in Los Angeles. The preoperative and postoperative diagnosis was “postmenopausal bleeding.” Respondent noted in his operation report that a bimanual examination performed under general anesthesia showed that the patient’s uterus was normal in size, shape, and symmetry. There was no palpable abnormality in the tubes or on the ovaries. There was no evidence of active or recent endometrial or vaginal bleeding. Only scanty material was obtained by curettage. Subsequent examination of the material by the pathologist showed no neoplastic changes. The operation was completed at around 8:50 a.m. At about 11:30 a.m., the nurse recorded that the patient states, “bleeding is rectal, not vaginal.” Respondent did not evaluate the patient’s rectal bleeding. There was no report of a pelvic ultrasound. There also was no CAT scan or X-rays of the patient’s pelvis.
F. On or about January 31, 1997, respondent’s office note indicated “persistent vaginal bleeding, desires total abdominal hysterectomy with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy.” According to the patient, respondent suggested the hysterectomy. There is no documentation in respondent’s records that he ever recommended to the patient progesterone as a treatment for postmenopausal vaginal bleeding and pelvic pain, that the patient refused such treatment, or any discussions about the risks and benefits of the procedures or their alternatives. Respondent had consents for a total abdominal hysterectomy and possible bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy and sterilization signed by the patient.
G. There is no indication in the patient’s records that respondent performed a physical examination of the patient on or about January 31, 1997. The patient’s next office visit with respondent was on or about March 3, 1997. There is no indication in the patient’s records that respondent performed a physical examination on that date in March 1997. No other office visits were documented in the records prior to the hysterectomy that was scheduled to be performed on or about March 12, 1997.
H. On or about March 12, 1997, the patient was admitted to Los Angeles Metropolitan Medical Center for a total abdominal hysterectomy with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy [i.e., removal of both fallopian tubes and both ovaries]. Respondent indicated in the admitting history that the patient was being admitted because she had multiple uterine leiomyomas (benign neoplasms derived from smooth muscle), and a history of recurrent abnormal and dysfunctional uterine bleeding that was “not responding to multiple diagnostic dilatation and curettage.” Respondent’s records regarding Patient M.C. do not corroborate his admitting history for that patient. The only pelvic examination documented by respondent showed that the patient’s uterus had normal characteristics.
I. Respondent indicated in the admitting history that the patient had a history of"chronic pelvic pain.“ There is no documentation in respondent’s office notes regarding any pelvic pain on or before that operation on or about March 12, 1997. The discharge summary dictated by respondent on or about March 28, 1997, indicated that the patient was constantly complaining of chronic pelvic pain, and that she was not responding to multiple treatments. Respondent also indicated in the discharge summary that an ultrasound showed multiple uterine leiomyomas. There is no indication of an ultrasound report in respondent’s records or in the patient’s hospital records or any documentation of other such information.
J. Respondent indicated in the admitting history a very high blood pressure of 192/84 as the patient’s admitting blood pressure and noted in his discharge summary a very high glucose of373 on admission. Respondent’s office note on or about March 3, 1997, indicated that the patient weighed 208 pounds. Respondent did not obtain a preoperative endocrine or internal medicine consultation prior to the elective operation on the 58-year-old patient, who was obese and had uncontrolled arterial hypertension and uncontrolled diabetes mellitus. There is no documentation about any discussion by respondent with the patient about temporarily postponing the operation until her medical conditions could be stabilized.
K. The operative record documented that there were problems with the anesthesia. The operation started with lumbar spinal anesthesia or epidural anesthetic, but had to be converted to general anesthesia with endotracheal intubation. Because the anesthesia was not effective, major portions of the patient’s bowel, including both her large and small intestines, were pushed into the surgical area throughout the operative procedure, making the surgery more difficult.
L. During the surgery on or about March 12, 1997, respondent performed a midline vertical skin incision, also known as a longitudinal incision, rather than remove the uterus and adnexa trans-vaginally or through a suprapubic transverse (Phannenstiel) incision. There were significant difficulties in controlling the bleeding on the right side of the patient. According to the medical records, about 1800 ml. of blood was lost during the operation. Because of the blood loss, respondent performed a supracervical hysterectomy or subtotal hysterectomy, leaving in place the patient’s cervix. Respondent also exposed both ureters and injected intravenous methylene blue instead of using the inert dye indigo carmine, to detect any possible urethral injury. No urethral injury was detected.
M. Respondent made holes in the patient’s small bowel while closing the patient’s abdominal wall. There was no mention made in respondent’s discharge summary of any bowel injury during the operation or the presence or absence of adhesions.
N. Respondent’s discharge summary indicated a principal diagnosis of”[s]ubmucous leiomyoma of uterus.“ The pathology report regarding the hysterectomy indicated that ”[e]ndometrium is thin with scattered sparse glands of the proliferative type, but many glands also show varying degrees of cystic dilatation, but definite adenomyosis or specific masses are not identified.“ No evidence of malignancy was found in the tissues examined. The pathologist’s diagnosis was: "Cystic atrophy, endometrium. Uterine arteriosclerosis and calcific medial sclerosis. Bilateral atrophic tubes and ovaries.”
Following the hysterectomy, the patient became seriously ill and was transferred to the intensive care unit. The patient had recurrent nausea, persistent vomiting, seeping of greenish fluid through the abdominal incision, a distended and tender abdomen, a large amount of greenish feculent fluid removed from her stomach, fever, a very high glucose value, and other symptoms that resulted in respondent’s request for a surgical consultation.
P. On or about March 20, 1997, the patient was taken to the operating room by another physician. That physician found two loops of small bowel stuck to the anterior abdominal wall with two perforations five inches apart. It was noted in the operation report that there were feces coming from the small bowel toward the wound. A partial small bowel resection with anastomosis was performed. The operation also included lysis of the adhesions, which were extensive. The patient was discharged on or about March 28, 1997.
Q. During respondent’s care and treatment of Patient M.C., respondent committed acts or omissions constituting gross negligence and other unprofessional conduct which included, but were not limited to, the following:
(1) Respondent failed to perform and document a proper and complete physical examination of Patient M.C. prior to his operations on the patient around December 1996 and March 1997.
(2) Respondent failed to properly evaluate and to have stabilized the patient’s critically high blood sugar level around December 1996 and thereafter.
(3) Respondent failed to properly evaluate and to have stabilized the patient’s high blood pressure around December 1996 and thereafter.
( 4) Respondent failed to obtain an internal medicine consultation or other appropriate medical consultation to evaluate the patient’s pre-existing medical problems and a release of this patient for elective surgery before performing any of the two surgeries on the 58-year-old patient who had uncontrolled arterial hypertension and uncontrolled diabetes mellitus.
(5) Respondent failed to perform an endometrial evaluation of the patient or other appropriate evaluations of the patient before recommending and performing surgery on the patient.
6) Respondent failed to properly evaluate, diagnose or treat the patient’s complaints of rectal bleeding.
(7) Respondent failed to document any discussion with the patient about temporarily postponing each operation until the medical conditions of the patient could be stabilized or about alternatives to surgery.
(8) Respondent perforated the patient’s bowel while closing the abdominal wall during a hysterectomy.
(9) Respondent failed to provide or document appropriate follow-up care to the patient following the surgery on or about March 12, 1997, or after her discharge from the hospital on or about March 28, 1997.
(10) Respondent failed to adequately and accurately document an informed consent to the surgery that was performed on or about March 12, 1997.
(11) Respondent failed to maintain adequate and accurate records regarding his diagnoses, the patient’s history, his perforation of the patient’s bowel, and other information regarding his care and treatment of the patient. (LINK) — 02/078/2003
Recent Comments