UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO SCHOOL OF MEDICINE
- 4/17/1997—STIPULATED DECISION—NO ADMISSIONS BUT CHARGED WITH ALLEGATIONS CONCERNING THE PERFORMANCE OF PELVIC EXAMINATIONS AND INFERTILITY PROCEDURES IN HIS PRACTICE. PUBLIC LETTER OF REPRIMAND.
- 3/05/1997—THIRD AMENDED ACCUSATION.
Excerpt from Stipulated Decision dated 4/17/1997:
FIRST CAUSE FOR DISCIPLINE
(Patient M.W.)
(Unprofessional Conduct)
4. On or about April 14, 1994, respondent undertook to treat patient M.W. who saw respondent for consultation regarding infertility. During the April 14, 1994 appointment, respondent took a medical history from M.W. and performed a pelvic examination. A nurse was present during the pelvic examination the entire time. However, the nurse remained at the head of the examination table.
5. During the pelvic examination, respondent fondled and/or massaged M.W.'s.clitoris for a brief period. M.W. was stunned at this physical contact. After the pelvic examination, respondent advised M.W. that she would be a good candidate for in vitro fertilization.
6. Once the examination was finished, M.W. dressed and returned to respondent's office with her husband. Respondent told her to make another appointment when she was ready to begin with the procedure. Because of respondent's conduct during the pelvic examination, M.W. never returned to respondent's office for a follow-up appointment.
7. Respondent's conduct with respect to patient M.W. as alleged above constitutes cause for disciplinary action pursuant to section 2234 (unprofessional conduct) of the Code.
SECOND CAUSE FOR DISCIPLINE
(Patient D.S)
(Unprofessional Conduct)
8. On or about November 28, 1994, respondent undertook to consult with and treat patient D.S. for infertility. D.S. was referred to respondent by her physician because she and her husband wanted to have a second child and were not having success. At her first appointment, D.S. and her husband spoke with respondent in his office for approximately one half an hour. Respondent asked her husband to wait in the waiting room while respondent performed a physical examination on D.S.
9. Once in the examination room, D.S. undressed, put on a cover-up, and got into the stirrups for a pelvic examination. D.S. commented to respondent that she was very cold and he rubbed her left thigh in a circular motion with his palm about four times. After rubbing her thigh, the nurse came into the examining room.
10. The nurse positioned herself at D.S.' head while respondent performed the pelvic examination. During the examination, respondent briefly rubbed D.S.'s clitoris approximately four to five times. Respondent's touch was firm.
11. D.S. had undergone an unusually high number of pelvic examinations due to her infertility problems, and no other physician had ever touched her in the manner herein before described.
12. When respondent conducted the bimanual examination, D.S. felt that everything seemed normal. However, the last part of the examination involved an ultrasound by use of a vaginal probe. During the ultrasound, respondent again rubbed D.S.'s clitoris two or three times as he inserted the probe into her vagina. Again, D.S. had undergone the ultrasound procedure several times in the past and no other physician had ever touched her clitoris in this manner.
13. D.S. was very upset regarding respondent's conduct during the pelvic examination and did not make any future appointments with respondent.
14. Respondent's conduct with respect to patient D.S. as alleged above constitutes cause for disciplinary action pursuant to section 2234 (unprofessional conduct) of the Code.
THIRD CAUSE FOR DISCIPLINE
(Patient A.S.)
(Unprofessional Conduct)
15. On or about November of 1990, respondent undertook to consult with and treat patient A.S. for infertility. During the pelvic examination that respondent performed on A.S., respondent briefly rubbed A.S.'s clitoris with his fingers. A nurse was in the room at the time, but she was not observing the examination and was busy writing. A.S. had undergone many pelvic examinations before and had never had her clitoris rubbed in this manner by the examining physician.
16. A.S. had to return to respondent's office the next day, or soon after her first visit to continue the fertility procedures. On the next visit, before respondent inserted the vaginal probe, he again rubbed her clitoris with his fingers.
17. Respondent's conduct with respect to patient A.S. as alleged above constitutes cause for disciplinary action pursuant to section 2234 (unprofessional conduct) of the Code.
FOURTH CAUSE FOR DISCIPLINE
(Patient W.K.)
(Unprofessional Conduct)
18. On or about February or March of 1989, respondent undertook to consult with and treat patient W.K. for infertility. During the course of this treatment, respondent performed only one pelvic examination on patient W.K. During this examination, just before respondent inserted the speculum into her vagina, W.K. felt respondent stroke her clitoris briefly with his finger.
19. Respondent's conduct with respect to patient W.K. as alleged above constitutes cause for disciplinary action pursuant to section 2234 (unprofessional conduct) of the Code.
FIFTH CAUSE FOR DISCIPLINE
(Patient J.G)
(Unprofessional Conduct)
20. On or about April of 1987, respondent undertook to consult with and treat patient J.G. for infertility. J.G. had suffered four spontaneous abortions at ten to twelve weeks and had been referred to respondent for consultation. On her first visit, respondent took her into his examination room and performed a pelvic examination. During the pelvic examination, respondent stimulated her clitoris briefly. Although a nurse was present in the room during the pelvic examination, the nurse was standing in the corner and could not observe the pelvic examination.
21. After the examination, J.G. paid her bill and left respondent's office. J.G. was upset with respondent. She never returned to respondent for follow-up treatment because of his conduct during the pelvic examination.
22. Respondent's conduct with respect to patient J.G. as alleged above constitutes cause for disciplinary action 2 pursuant to section 2234 (unprofessional conduct) of the Code.
SIXTH CAUSE FOR DISCIPLINE
(Patient D.C.)
(Unprofessional Conduct)
23. On or about 1989, respondent began to treat patient D.C. for infertility. D.C. was unable to become pregnant at that time and because of insurance coverage concerns was unable to continue treatment with respondent. In the summer of 1991, D.C.'s insurance coverage changed and she again sought treatment from respondent for infertility. During the summer of 1991, respondent performed a pelvic examination and a breast examination on D.C. No nurse was present in the room during these examinations.
24. When respondent performed the pelvic examination, he slid his fingers down her clitoris. D.C. found this touching to be inappropriate and degrading.
25. D.C. was extremely uncomfortable and upset with respondent's conduct. However, D.C. returned to respondent for further treatment because she wanted to have a baby.
26. Respondent's conduct with respect to patient D.C. as alleged above constitutes cause for disciplinary action pursuant to section 2234 (unprofessional conduct) of the Code.
SEVENTH CAUSE FOR DISCIPLINE
(Patients M.W., D.S., A.S., W.K, J.G., and D.C.
(Repeated Negligent Acts & Unprofessional Conduct)
Respondent's conduct as set forth above in all Causes for Discipline whether jointly, or in any combination thereof, constitutes cause for discipline pursuant to sections 2234 (c) (repeated negligent acts) and 2234 (unprofessional conduct) of the Code.
PROPOSED LETTER OF REPRIMAND
On or about March 5, 1997, the Medical Board of California filed a Third Amended Accusation No. 12-95-46238 (hereinafter the "Accusation") against your license to practice medicine. This Accusation was based on allegations concerning the performance of pelvic examinations and infertility procedures in your practice.
It has been decided by the Division of Medical Quality of the Medical Board for California pursuant to Business and Professions Code section 2233 that a Public Letter of Reprimand shall be issued in this case. It has been determined that by your successful completion of an oral competency examination in the performance of pelvic examinations and ultrasound procedures, and your successful completion of additional education courses and communication training that you have demonstrated competency in your area of practice.
WHEREFORE, pursuant to the authority of section 2233 of the Business and Professions Code, the Division of Medical Quality of the Medical Board of California hereby withdraws Third Amended Accusation No. 12-95-46238 and issues a public letter of reprimand in this matter, and understands from your conduct and representations that due to the knowledge and insight you have gained, no future violations of the Business and Professions Code will occur.
#FARCE—This is a great example of how even though the MBC might follow the laws, they aren't protecting the best interest of the public. This doctor sexually assaulted at least six woman during their examinations. The MBC investigated and found enough information to file three versions of an accusation against him. But in the end, "For purposes of the settlement of the action against respondent...and to avoid a lengthy administrative hearing...", took precedence over the actual disciplining of this doctor for the sexual misconduct of six women and further protection of the public. MBC ended up giving this doctor a "Public Letter of Reprimand" which hardly mentioned the actual descriptions of what he did wrong, it boiled it down to "allegations concerning the performance of pelvic examinations and infertility procedures in your clinic." That in no way infers that any sexual misconduct occurred. By law, a Public Letter of Reprimand only appears on the Medical Board's website for 10 years. This doctor's profile on their website is completely clear and no longer mentions any of the above sexual misconduct so patients can't find out about it by visiting the Medical Board website. |
