When people think about sexual abuse by a physician, they often focus on the individual doctor responsible for the misconduct. However, in some cases, a hospital, medical practice, university medical center, or healthcare system may also bear responsibility.
Healthcare institutions have significant responsibilities when it comes to hiring, credentialing, supervising, and retaining physicians. When those responsibilities are ignored, patients may be placed at risk.
In New York, survivors of sexual abuse by a doctor may have claims not only against the physician who committed the abuse, but also against the institution that failed to protect patients from foreseeable harm.
Hospitals Are Not Automatically Liable for a Doctor’s Conduct
A hospital is not automatically responsible whenever a physician commits sexual misconduct.
In many cases, hospitals argue that sexual abuse falls outside the scope of a physician’s employment and therefore cannot be attributed to the institution itself. They may also argue that they had no knowledge of prior complaints or warning signs.
For that reason, institutional liability cases often focus on a different question: Did the hospital or medical practice know—or should it have known—that the physician posed a risk to patients?
The answer to that question frequently determines whether an institution may be held liable.
Healthcare Institutions Have Independent Responsibilities
Patients place enormous trust in healthcare organizations. When a patient visits a hospital, medical practice, or academic medical center, they reasonably expect that physicians have been properly screened, credentialed, supervised, and monitored.
Healthcare institutions have responsibilities that extend beyond simply providing office space to physicians. Depending on the circumstances, those responsibilities may include:
- Reviewing a physician’s background before hiring;
- Evaluating prior disciplinary actions;
- Investigating complaints made by patients or staff;
- Monitoring physician conduct;
- Granting and renewing hospital privileges;
- Implementing patient safety policies; and
- Taking corrective action when concerns arise.
When institutions fail to fulfill those responsibilities, patients may suffer preventable harm.
Common Theories of Institutional Liability
Several legal theories frequently arise in cases involving sexual abuse by physicians.
Negligent Hiring
Hospitals and medical practices are expected to conduct appropriate background investigations before employing physicians.
If an institution ignores a physician’s disciplinary history, prior complaints, or other warning signs during the hiring process, it may face allegations of negligent hiring.
Negligent Credentialing
Hospitals typically grant physicians privileges that allow them to treat patients within the facility.
Credentialing decisions can have significant consequences. If a hospital grants or renews privileges despite information suggesting that a physician poses a risk to patients, questions may arise regarding whether the credentialing process was handled appropriately.
Negligent Retention
Concerns sometimes emerge after a physician has already been hired.
Patient complaints, employee reports, regulatory investigations, or other information may raise concerns about a physician’s conduct. If an institution allows a physician to continue treating patients despite those concerns, it may face claims for negligent retention.
Negligent Supervision
Healthcare organizations also have responsibilities regarding oversight.
Allegations of negligent supervision often focus on whether a hospital or medical practice failed to adequately monitor a physician’s conduct or failed to implement safeguards that could have protected patients.
The Central Issue: What Did the Institution Know?
In many physician sexual abuse cases, the most important evidence involves notice.
Plaintiffs frequently seek information regarding:
- Prior patient complaints;
- Reports from nurses or staff members;
- Internal investigations;
- Credentialing files;
- Peer review concerns;
- Prior lawsuits;
- Regulatory inquiries; and
- Communications among administrators.
Institutional liability cases often turn on whether warning signs existed before additional patients were harmed.
If multiple complaints were received over a period of years, for example, questions may arise regarding how those complaints were handled and whether additional action should have been taken.
The Robert Hadden Cases
Perhaps the most well-known example in New York is the litigation involving Robert Hadden, a former OB-GYN affiliated with Columbia University and NewYork-Presbyterian.
Hadden was ultimately convicted in federal court and sentenced to prison for 20 years for sexually abusing patients. Over time, more than one thousand survivors came forward with allegations involving Hadden.
The litigation did not focus solely on Hadden’s conduct. It also examined the actions of the institutions with which he was affiliated.
Survivors alleged that complaints existed long before Hadden’s criminal prosecution and that institutional failures allowed him continued access to patients. Columbia University commissioned an external investigation that examined the institution’s response to allegations involving Hadden.
The resulting settlements have exceeded one billion dollars.
The Hadden litigation illustrates an important point: in some physician sexual abuse cases, the central legal issues involve not only what the doctor did, but how institutions responded when concerns were raised.
Hospitals Often Raise Several Defenses
Healthcare institutions frequently argue that they should not be held responsible for a physician’s misconduct.
Common defenses include:
Lack of Notice
Hospitals often argue that they had no prior knowledge of misconduct and therefore had no reason to intervene.
Independent Contractor Status
Some physicians are not direct employees of hospitals. Institutions may argue that the physician operated as an independent contractor and that the hospital should not be responsible for the physician’s conduct.
Conduct Outside the Scope of Employment
Hospitals frequently argue that sexual misconduct falls outside the scope of a physician’s employment duties.
For this reason, many institutional cases focus on negligent hiring, credentialing, retention, or supervision rather than traditional employer liability theories.
Why Institutional Claims Matter
Institutional claims serve several purposes.
First, they may provide a path to accountability when organizational failures contributed to patient harm.
Second, institutions often possess records that can shed light on whether warning signs existed before additional patients were harmed.
Third, healthcare organizations typically maintain insurance coverage and resources that individual physicians may not possess.
Most importantly, institutional cases can raise broader questions regarding patient safety, reporting systems, and organizational practices.
When litigation reveals failures in hiring, supervision, or complaint handling, healthcare organizations may be forced to reevaluate policies designed to protect patients.
What Survivors Should Know
Every case is different.
The fact that a physician sexually abused a patient does not automatically mean that a hospital or medical practice is legally responsible. At the same time, institutions cannot ignore warning signs, dismiss complaints, or fail to take reasonable steps to protect patients.
Determining whether a healthcare organization may be liable often requires a careful review of what information was available to the institution and how it responded.
In many cases, survivors do not have access to that information when they first come forward. Internal records, complaint histories, and credentialing materials may only become available through litigation and investigation.
Conclusion
In cases involving sexual abuse by a physician, the focus is often placed on the individual doctor responsible for the misconduct. That focus is understandable.
However, some cases involve larger questions.
Did a hospital ignore complaints? Did a medical practice fail to investigate concerns? Did a healthcare institution allow a physician continued access to patients despite warning signs?
When institutions fail to take reasonable steps to protect patients, they may face liability alongside the physician who committed the abuse.
For survivors in New York, evaluating a potential claim may require examining not only the actions of the doctor, but also the actions of the healthcare organization that entrusted the doctor with access to patients.