KERMANSHAH UNIVERSITY OF MEDICAL SCIENCES AND HEALTH SERVICES—IRAN
#ETHN
- 8/06/2019—CALIFORNIA MEDICAL LICENSE REVOKED.
- 11/20/2018—ACCUSATION FILED.
- 11/20/2008—MEDICAL BOARD GRANTED MEDICAL LICENSE.
- 3/13/2008—STATEMENT OF ISSUED FILED AGAINST RESPONDENT.
- 7/16/2007—REQUEST FOR A HEARING ON THE DENIAL.
- 3/29/2007—FIFTH APPLICATION FOR A CALIFORNIA MEDICAL LICENSE—DENIED.
- 3/24/2006—LICENSE DENIED.
- 2/22/2006—APPEALED LICENSE DENIAL AND HAD A HEARING WHERE THE JUDGE DENIED THE APPEAL.
- 9/27/2005—STATEMENT OF ISSUES FILED.
- 4/2005—FILED AN UPDATED APPLICATION FOR CALIFORNIA MEDICAL LICENSE—DENIED.
- 9/04/2003—NY STATE BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL MEDICAL CONDUCT REPRIMANDED RESPONDENT FOR HAVING ENGAGED IN AND BEING CONVICTED OF SEXUAL MISCONDUCT.
- 07/2003—THIRD APPLICATION FOR CALIFORNIA MEDICAL LICENSE—DENIED.
- 10/10/2001— CONVICTED OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN NEW YORK.
- 02/2001—SECOND APPLICATION FOR CALIFORNIA MEDICAL LICENSE—DENIED.
- 11/2000—FIRST APPLICATION FOR CALIFORNIA MEDICAL LICENSE—DENIED.
Excerpt from the Decision dated 8/06/2019:
Respondent has presented insufficient evidence to indicate any change in attitude or practice to prevent a recurrence. Since respondent's license was issued based on his representations to the Board that he would use a chaperone, ordering respondent to use a chaperone under a restricted license would be futile and not calculated to aid in his rehabilitation. Probationary terms and conditions will have no preventative or remedial effect in light of. respondent's continuing and steadfast denial of any need for social skills training or therapy and treatment for sexual misconduct or addiction. Therefore, public protection is best served by revocation of respondent's license.
ORDER
The Accusation against respondent Sean Ataee, M.D., is affirmed. Physician's and Surgeon's Certificate Number A 106704 issued to respondent is revoked.
Excerpt from Accusation dated 11/20/2018:
FIRST CAUSE FOR DISCIPLINE
(Gross Negligence—Improper Touching of Patient l's Breasts)
21. Respondent is subject to disciplinary action under section 2234, subdivision (b), of the Code in that he engaged in gross negligence by improperly touching Patient l's breasts during his November 11, 2016 examination of her. Complainant refers to and, by this reference, incorporates herein, paragraphs 9 through l4 and 16 through i9, above, as though fully set forth herein. The· circumstances are as follows:
22. Without medical reason or purpose and without a chaperone present, Respondent exposed and touched Patient l's breasts. The patient was not informed of the need or intent to touch her breasts nor did she give permission to do so.
23. Respondent's acts and/or omissions as set forth in paragraphs 9 through 14 and 16 through 19, whether proven individually, jointly, or in any combination thereof, constitute gross negligence pursuant to section 2234, subdivision (b), of the Code. Therefore cause for discipline exists.
SECOND CAUSE FOR DISCIPLINE
(Gross Negligence - Improper Touching and Physical
Contact During Examination of Patient 1's Hips)
24. Respondent is subject to disciplinary action under section 2234, subdivision (b), of the Code in that he engaged in gross negligence by improperly touching and making physical contact with Patient 1 during his November 11, 2016 examination of her hips. Complainant refers to and, by this reference, incorporates herein, paragraphs 9 through 11 and 15 through 18 and 20, as though fully set forth herein. The circumstances are as follows:
25. Without medical reason or purpose and without a chaperone present, Respondent reached beneath Patient 1's underwear with his right hand touching her bare skin.
26. Without medical reason or purpose and without a chaperone present, Respondent requested that Patient 1 forward-bend in a standing position while his pelvis was in contact with her gluteal area.
27. Without medical reason or purpose and without a chaperone present, Respondent caused or allowed his genitals to come into contact with Patient 1's gluteal area.
28. Respondent's acts and/or omissions as set forth in paragraphs 9 through 11 and 15 through 18 and 20, whether proven individually, jointly, or in any combination thereof, constitute gross negligence pursuant to section 2234, subdivision (b), of the Code. Therefore cause for discipline exists.
THIRD CAUSE FOR DISCIPLINE
(Repeated Acts of Negligence)
29. Respondent is subject to disciplinary action under section 2234, subdivision (c), of the Code in that he engaged in repeated negligent acts in the care and treatment of Patient 1 during his November 11, 2016 examination of her. Complainant refers to and, by this reference, incorporates herein, paragraphs 9 through 28, above, as though fully set forth herein. The circumstances are as follows:
30. Without medical reason or purpose and without a chaperone present, Respondent exposed and touched Patient l's breasts. The patient was not informed of the need or intent to touch her breasts nor did she give permission to do so.
31. Without medical reason or purpose and without a chaperone present, Respondent reached beneath Patient 1's underwear with his right hand touching her bare skin.
32. Without medical reason or purpose and without a chaperone present, Respondent requested that Patient 1 forward-bend in a standing position while his pelvis was in contact with her gluteal area.
33. Without medical reason or purpose and without a chaperone present, Respondent caused or allowed his genitals to come into contact with Patient 1's gluteal area.
34. Without a chaperone present, while Patient 1 was lying in a supine position on the examination table, Respondent caused or allowed his groin or pelvis make contact with her, requiring that the patient move to avoid this contact.
35. Respondent's acts and/or omissions as set forth in paragraphs 9 through 28, above, whether proven individually, jointly, or in any combination thereof, constitute gross negligence pursuant to section 2234, subdivision (c), of the Code. Therefore cause for discipline exists.
FOURTH CAUSE FOR DISCIPLINE
(Incompetence)
36. Respondent is subject to disciplinary action under section 2234, subdivision (d), of the Code in that he was incompetent in his evaluation and examination of Patient I on November 11, 2016. Complainant refers to and, by this reference, incorporates herein, paragraphs 9 through 35, above, as though fully set forth herein. The circumstances are as follows:
37. Without medical reason or purpose and without a chaperone present, Respondent exposed and touched Patient I's breasts. The patient was not informed of the need or intent to touch her breasts nor did she give permission to do so.
38. Requesting that Patient 1 forward bend in a standing position is not part of a hip examination and there was no need to Respondent to touch the patient while requesting that she forward bend in a standing position.
39. Respondent's acts and/or omissions as set forth in paragraphs 9 through 35, above, whether proven individually, jointly, or in any combination thereof, constitute gross negligence pursuant to section 2234, subdivision (d), of the Code. Therefore cause for discipline exists.
FIFTH CAUSE FOR DISCIPLINE
(Sexual Misconduct)
40. Respondent is subject to disciplinary action under section 726 of the Code in that he engaged in sexual misconduct with Patient 1 during her examination on November 11, 2016. Complainant refers to and, by this reference, incorporates herein, paragraphs 9 through 39, above, as though fully set forth herein. The circumstances are as follows:
41. Without medical reason or purpose and without a chaperone present, Respondent exposed and touched Patient 1's breasts.
42. Without medical reason or purpose and without a chaperone present, Respondent reached beneath Patient 1's underwear with his right hand touching her bare skin.
43. Without medical reason or purpose and without a chaperone present, Respondent requested that Patient 1 forward-bend in a standing position while his pelvis was in contact with her gluteal area.
44. Without medical reason or purpose and without a chaperone present, Respondent caused or allowed his genitals to come into contact with Patient 1's gluteal area.
45. Without a chaperone present, while Patient 1 was lying in a supine position on the examination table, Respondent caused or allowed his groin or pelvis make contact with her, requiring that the patient move to avoid this contact.
46. Respondent's acts and/or omissions as set forth in paragraphs 9 through 39, above, whether proven individually, jointly, or in any combination thereof, constitute gross negligence pursuant to section 726 of the Code. Therefore cause for discipline exists.
SIXTH CAUSE FOR DISCIPLINE
(Unprofessional Conduct)
47. Respondent is subject to disciplinary action under sections 726 and 2234 of the Code, for engaging in unprofessional conduct. Complainant refers to and, by this reference, incorporates herein, paragraphs 9 through 46, above, as though fully set forth herein.
48. Respondent's acts and/or omissions as set forth in paragraphs 9 through 46, above, whether proven individually, jointly, or in any combination thereof, constitute unprofessional conduct pursuant to sections 726 and 2234 of the Code. Therefore cause for discipline exists.
DISCIPLINARY CONSIDERATIONS
49. To determine the degree of discipline, if any, to be imposed on Respondent, Complainant alleges that on October 10, 2001, in a criminal action entitled The People of the State of New York v. Shahab Ataee, before the Criminal Court of the City of New York, County of Queens, Docket Number 2000QN028980, Respondent was convicted of violating New York Penal Law section 130.55, sexual abuse in the third degree, a misdemeanor. Respondent was sentenced to one-year conditional discharge, was required to pay a surcharge of $120, and was ordered to have no contact with the victim. Said conviction was appealed by Respondent and upheld by the Supreme Court of the State of New York on or about March 15, 2003 (Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Term, 2nd and 11th Judicial Districts, case no 2001- 1492 Q CR.) The record of the criminal proceeding is incorporated as if fully set forth herein.
50. To determine the degree of discipline, if any, to be imposed on Respondent, Complainant alleges that on September 4, 2003, the State Board for Professional Medical Conduct, State of New York, Department of Health, issued a Determination and Order in which a censure and reprimand was issued against Respondent, pursuant to New York Education Law section 6530, subdivision (9)(a)(i), for having engaged in an act of professional misconduct. The. record of the State Board for Professional Medical Conduct, State ofNewY ork is incorporated as if fully-set forth herein.
51. In a civil lawsuit entitled Jane Doe v. Gateway Rehab & Wellness Center, Inc., Victor Rafa, D.C. and Sean Ataee, MD., Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2013-006335, Plaintiff claimed that she presented to Gateway Rehab on April 11, 2012 for nerve conduction studies to be performed by Respondent. She alleged that during the nerve conduction studies, she was touched in an inappropriate and sexual manner by Respondent and that as a result of the alleged "sexual assault" by Respondent, she suffered ernotloμal distress, anxiety, panic attacks, depression, and a sleep disorder. As to Defendant Victor Rafa, D.C., a partial owner of Gateway Rehab, the patient alleged that he failed to properly and thoroughly screen [Respondent] for his competency to treat patients," failed to properly supervise Respondent and failed to provide a chaperone when Respondent was treating female Patients. Dr. Rafa settled the matter with the plaintiff in the amount of $1,000,000, the policy limits of his professional liability insurance coverage. The record of the civil proceeding is incorporated as if fully set forth herein.
Excerpt from Proposed Decision dated 9/23/2008:
FACTUAL FINDINGS
1. Statement of Issues number 20-2008-180997, dated March 13, 2008, was filed by complainant Barbara Johnston (complainant), Executive Director of the Medical Board of California (the Board), Department of Consumer Affairs, State of California against respondent Shahab Ataee. The Statement of Issues alleges that respondent applied to the Board for a physician's and surgeon's certificate and that the license should be denied under Business and Professions Code section 480 for conviction of a crime and for commission of an act that would be a basis for discipline, section 726 for committing an act of sexual abuse, section 2305 for discipline by the Board of another state, and section 2234 for unprofessional conduct.
2. On March 29, 2007, respondent submitted an application to the Board seeking a physician and surgeon's certificate in the State of California. On July 5, 2007, the Board denied respondent's application. On July 16, 2007, respondent requested a hearing be held on the denial of his application. Thereafter, complainant filed the statement of issues and the proceeding herein followed.
3. On October 10, 2001, in the Criminal Court of the City of New York, County of Queens, in case number 2000QN028980, respondent was convicted after a court trial of a violation of New York Penal Law section 130.55 for sexual abuse in the third degree, a misdemeanor. The court sentenced respondent to one year conditional discharge and ordered respondent to pay a surcharge of $120.00 and to have no contact with the victim. Respondent has fully complied with the sentence from the New York Criminal Court.
4. This criminal conviction arose out of an incident that occurred while respondent was working at Elmhurst Hospital Center (Elmhurst) in Queens, New York. On March 13, 2000, respondent was working as a resident physician in a postgraduate training program at Elmhurst. Respondent was conducting a physical examination of a comatose patient who was in bed in an intensive care room. The patient's adult daughter was in the room during this examination and respondent offered to demonstrate to the daughter how to exercise her mother's legs. At that time, respondent subjected the patient's daughter to sexual contact without her consent by touching her breasts, stomach, and hips and trying to put his hand inside her pants. The daughter pushed respondent away, verbally rejected respondent's sexual actions, and left the room.
5. On September 4, 2003, the State Board for Professional Medical Conduct (New York Board), State of New York, Department of Health, issued an Order in which it censured and reprimanded respondent for having engaged in the sexual misconduct that constituted an act of professional misconduct. Respondent did not yet hold a license to practice medicine in the state of New York at the time of this incident; however, since respondent was a medical resident, he was nevertheless subject to disciplinary action in New York. The New York Board decided to issue a censure and reprimand to respondent rather than a higher form of discipline because it believed that respondent had already paid a heavy price for the offense that he committed. Respondent suffered a criminal conviction, he lost his job at Elmhurst, he was unable to obtain another medical position, his wife was so distraught about the incident that she attempted suicide, a civil lawsuit was filed against him, and he was forced into a considerable amount of financial debt. To suppo1i his family, respondent delivered newspapers and drove a taxi. He was eventually reinstated to his residency program at Mount Sinai Hospital after a suspension and he completed his residency in August 2001. Respondent relocated to Long Beach, California to start a two-year fellowship, but shortly after relocating to California, respondent lost the fellowship position.
6. Respondent first applied for a medical license in California in November 2000 and the Board denied his application. Respondent submitted another application for licensure in February 2001 and the Board denied that application. Respondent applied for a medical license a third time in July 2003. After respondent submitted an application update. the Board again denied respondent's application in April 2005. Respondent appealed that denial and after a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge, the Board issued a Decision dated February 22, 2006 (February Decision) denying respondent's application for a license to practice medicine in the State of California. In the February Decision, the administrative court noted that respondent continued to adamantly deny having committed any sexual offense and the court concluded that respondent had not made a sufficient showing of rehabilitation in order to support the issuance of a license.
#Farce—The Medical Board refused to give him a license after he was charged with sexual assault in NY. They finally gave him a license on November 20, 2018, then the very same day, issued an accusation against him for sexual misconduct, unprofessional conduct, incompetence, repeated acts of negligence, and two counts of gross negligence (improper touching of breasts and improper touching and physical contact during examination of patient's hips.
|
