Lawsuit: Johnstown practice, hospital covered for pedophile pediatrician | TribLIVE.com
Pennsylvania

Lawsuit: Johnstown practice, hospital covered for pedophile pediatrician

Associated Press
1160248_web1_1160248-0710e7a80c3d466c85e91dd793dd2c01
AP
A civil suit says a Pennsylvania pediatric practice knew that Dr. Johnnie Barto was a threat to molest young patients but covered it up. The suit says Laurel Pediatric Associates in Johnstown knew at least two decades ago that Barto’s patients were in “serious danger,” but allowed him to treat — and molest — children, explaining away parents’ complaints about his sexual misconduct.
1160248_web1_ptr-LaurelPediatricAssociates-051619
Google
Laurel Pediatric Associates in Johnstown

EBENSBURG — A civil suit says a Pennsylvania pediatric practice knew that one of its physicians was a threat to molest young patients but covered it up.

The suit says Laurel Pediatric Associates in Johnstown knew at least two decades ago that Dr. Johnnie Barto’s patients were in “serious danger,” but allowed him to treat — and molest — children, explaining away parents’ complaints about his sexual misconduct.

Barto was sentenced in March to at least 79 years in prison for sexually assaulting 31 children, most of them patients.

Five former patients are seeking unspecified money damages from Barto, Laurel Pediatric and Conemaugh Memorial Medical Center, a hospital where he had privileges. Dozens more victims are expected to sue.

Laurel declined comment. A message was left at Conemaugh.

Categories: News | Pennsylvania | Top Stories
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.