ShareThis Page

White Oak physician scheduled for court

| Tuesday, May 13, 2014, 4:16 a.m.
Dr. Raja Chakrapani conducted practices at several Mon-Yough locations including this office building in White Oak. On Monday he was acquitted of charges in the last of four cases filed against him last year. Two cases were dismissed at the magisterial level and a third was dismissed before going to trial because the statute of limitations had expired.
Patrick Cloonan | Trib Total Media
Dr. Raja Chakrapani conducted practices at several Mon-Yough locations including this office building in White Oak. On Monday he was acquitted of charges in the last of four cases filed against him last year. Two cases were dismissed at the magisterial level and a third was dismissed before going to trial because the statute of limitations had expired.
Dr. Raja Chakrapani of Fox Chapel leaves a White Oak courtroom after his preliminary hearing last year. He was acquitted on Monday by an Allegheny County Common Pleas Judge of indecent assault and harassment charges.
Patrick Cloonan | Trib Total Media
Dr. Raja Chakrapani of Fox Chapel leaves a White Oak courtroom after his preliminary hearing last year. He was acquitted on Monday by an Allegheny County Common Pleas Judge of indecent assault and harassment charges.

A new complaint of indecent assault and harassment charges was filed last month against a suspended Fox Chapel physician who is scheduled for a trial on Thursday on other counts filed last year.

While jury selection is scheduled on Thursday in the case of Dr. Raja Chakrapani, 60, a hearing is slated on May 29 in White Oak on charges filed on April 24.

Chakrapani once stood accused of eight counts of indecent assault and four of harassment, filed by two patients at his White Oak office and one apiece at Swissvale and West Mifflin offices.

Some of the charges were filed last July, others in September. The allegations stemmed from reported incidents dating back to August 2012.

Two cases covering four counts of indecent assault and two of harassment were held for trial on Sept. 30 by White Oak Magisterial District Judge Thomas G. Miller Jr.

Miller dismissed a third case while an Allegheny County assistant district attorney withdrew a fourth case.

Trial originally was scheduled in the two surviving cases on March 17 before Allegheny County Common Pleas Judge Philip A. Ignelzi, but a postponement was granted at the prosecution's request.

“We requested the postponement to have additional time to put the case together,” said Mike Manko, spokesman for Allegheny County District Attorney Stephen A. Zappala Jr.

On April 14 Chakrapani's attorney Patrick Thomassey filed a motion with Ignelzi to dismiss charges in one of the cases. The prosecution filed a “nolle prosequi” motion in that case on April 28.

“Our office (declined to prosecute) one set of charges because they were past the statute of limitations,” Manko said.

Chakrapani's license was suspended by the State Board of Medicine after the first charges were filed. Thomassey has been confident that his client will be exonerated and his license reinstated.

The Monroeville-based defense attorney said some accusers filed civil suits against Chakrapani and that others were willing to testify about his client's character.

Chakrapani originally needed to produce a $25,000 bond to be released from Allegheny County Jail, but that was reduced later to nonmonetary bond, which remains the case pending his slated court dates.

Patrick Cloonan is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 412-664-9161, ext. 1967, or pcloonan@tribweb.com.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.