Ohio medical board to review nearly 2,000 ‘sexual boundary’ cases | TribLIVE.com

Ohio medical board to review nearly 2,000 ‘sexual boundary’ cases

Associated Press
Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine (right) and Public Safety Director Tom Stickrath announce Friday that the State Medical Board ignored credible evidence in 1996 that an Ohio State University team doctor had been sexually abusing male students for years, during a news conference in Columbus, Ohio.

COLUMBUS, Ohio — The State Medical Board of Ohio plans to review nearly 2,000 closed cases involving alleged “sexual boundary” violations by doctors over the past 25 years to see if any involved evidence of criminal misconduct that was ignored.

Gov. Mike DeWine requested such a review after learning credible evidence was ignored in a 1996 investigation of an Ohio State University team doctor now accused of widespread sexual abuse.

DeWine asked the board to review about 1,500 closed cases involving sexual assault allegations.

Medical board spokeswoman Tessie Pollock said Tuesday the board is casting a slightly wider net to include any with allegations of “sexual boundary” violations.

She says that description could include improper, non-physical interactions that aren’t necessarily a crime, such as a doctor asking a patient out for a date.

Categories: News | Health Now | World
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.