Doctors practice despite complaints

SEATTLE – Hundreds of doctors and counselors in Washington state have been allowed to keep working despite complaints from patients of sexual misconduct, according to a newspaper report.

The Seattle Times investigation found the state Department of Health repeatedly failed to adequately investigate and penalize offenders – including doctors, nurses, chiropractors and counselors.

Since 1995, the department has dismissed 461 sexual-misconduct complaints – about a third of the nearly 1,500 received – without making an inquiry. The Medical Quality Assurance Commission, which regulates the state’s 20,000 physicians, meets about seven times a year. Board members frequently wait until disciplinary hearings are under way to read the thick investigative files, leaving scant time for meaningful examination.

When the state does intervene, offenders are often allowed to keep working under dubious safeguards, their sexual abuse of patients treated as a lapse in judgment.

Following the newspaper’s findings, the Health Department said it has moved toward reform. Last month, it issued eight emergency suspensions for health-care professionals charged with sexual misconduct. That compares to a total of seven in 2005.

Professional associations make clear that sexual contact with a patient or client is unethical and forbidden.

Closed-door settlements often result in the characterization of sexual misconduct cases as consensual – confirming sexual contact took place but the state is not revoking or suspending a license. In such cases, practitioners agree to watered-down charges, which is what the public sees on the state Health Department Web site when a practitioner is disciplined.

In the past decade, 197 practitioners who were subject to sexual complaints have been allowed to return to work, more than half under “practice restrictions,” such as requiring a chaperone when examining patients.

State officials contend state courts consider a health-care license the property of its holder, and that regulators must start with the “least restrictive” discipline, according to case law.