Example Doctor Sex Abuse Lawsuit

Below is a detailed sample complaint in a sexual assault lawsuit filed against a doctor with a documented history of sexual abuse and assault.   This complaint outlines the allegations against the doctor, who has been accused of multiple instances of misconduct.

The severity and frequency of these offenses eventually led to the revocation of his medical license, thankfully, which is a great social good that can come from doctor sex abuse lawsuits.

• Hiring a sex abuse lawyer in Baltimore
• Latest news, updates, and verdicts in doctor sex abuse lawsuits
• Video explaining how doctor sex abuse lawsuits work

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR BALTIMORE CITY SARAH MAYS :
32 Fleet Street, Apt 3B
Baltimore, Maryland 21231 :
Plaintiff, :
v. :
Case No.:
MID-ATLANTIC PERMANENTE :
MEDICAL GROUP, P.C. d/b/a
KAISER PERMANENTE :
GAITHERSBURG MEDICAL CENTER
2101 East Jefferson Street :
Rockville, MD 20852
Serve Resident Agent: :
The Prentice-Hall
Corporation System, MA :
7 St. Paul Street
Suite 820 :
Baltimore, MD 21202 :

And :

BRYAN S. MUSSINA, M.D.
6188 Oxon Hill Road, Suite 100
Oxon Hill, MD 20745
Defendants.

COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiff, Sarah Mays, by and through her attorneys, Ronald V. Miller, Jr., Laura G. Zois, and Miller & Zois, LLC, sues the Defendants Mid-Atlantic Permanente Medical Group, P.C. d/b/a Kaiser Permanente Gaithersburg Medical Center; Kaiser Foundation Health Plan of the Mid-Atlantic States, Inc.; and Bryan S. Mussina, M.D. and says:

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

1. This matter was filed with the Health Care Alternative Dispute Resolution Office of Maryland on or about May 10, 2024. A copy of the Statement of Claim is attached as Exhibit “1” and prayed to be taken as part hereof.
2. The Plaintiff filed two Certificates of Merit and Reports with the Health Care Alternative Dispute Resolution Office of Maryland on or about August 7, 2023. Copies of the Certificates of Merit and Reports are attached as Exhibit “2” and prayed to be taken as part thereof.
3. The Defendants Kaiser Foundation Health Plan of the Mid-Atlantic States, Inc., and Mid-Atlantic Permanente Medical Group, PC, filed an Election to Waive Arbitration with the Health Care Alternative Dispute Resolution Office of Maryland on or about June 4, 2024. A copy of the Election to Waive Arbitration is attached as Exhibit “3” and prayed to be taken as part thereof.
4. The Health Care Alternative Dispute Resolution Office of Maryland issued an Order of Transfer on or about May 12, 2024. A copy of the Order of Transfer is attached as Exhibit “4” and prayed to be taken as part hereof.
5. These claims were filed correctly in the Health Care Alternative Dispute Resolution Office as they exceed Thirty Thousand Dollars ($30,000.00) in damages.
6. Plaintiff refers back to, repeats, re-alleges, adopts, and incorporates by reference the initial Statement of Claim filed with the Health Care Alternative Dispute Resolution Office on or about August 7, 2023, as though fully set forth herein.

PARTIES

7. The Plaintiff, Sarah Mays (hereinafter “Ms. Mays”), is an adult citizen of Baltimore, Maryland.
8. At all relevant times to this malpractice lawsuit, the Defendant, Bryan S. Mussina, M.D. (hereinafter “Dr. Mussina”), was and is an adult citizen of the State of Maryland, who at all times complained of herein, was licensed to practice medicine in the State of Maryland, with offices in Largo, Prince George’s County, Maryland.
9. Defendant, Kaiser Foundation Health Plan of the Mid-Atlantic States, LLC, is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Maryland, with its principal place of business at 2101 E. Jefferson Street, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
10. At all relevant times, the Defendant, Kaiser Foundation Health Plan of the Mid-Atlantic States, LLC, operated an extensive HMO/medical and surgical practice that included all medical services, including pain management, and was the employer and/or the actual and/or apparent principal of Defendant Dr. Mussina.
11. Defendant, Mid-Atlantic Permanente Medical Group, P.C., is a professional corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Maryland, with its principal place of business at 2101 E. Jefferson Street, Rockville, Maryland, 20852.
12. At all relevant times, Mid-Atlantic Permanente Medical Group, P.C., was the employer and/or actual and/or apparent principal of Defendant Dr. Mussina.
13. For the remainder of this Complaint, Defendants Kaiser Foundation Health Plan of the Mid-Atlantic States, LLC and Mid-Atlantic Permanente Medical Group, P.C. will be collectively referred to as “Kaiser Permanente.”

AMOUNT OF CLAIM AND VENUE

14. The amount of this claim exceeds Thirty Thousand Dollars ($30,000.00) and venue is appropriate in Prince George’s County as the forum in which the Defendants reside, have their primary offices, carry on their regular business, are employed, and/or habitually engage in a vocation.

FACTS RELEVANT TO ALL COUNTS

15. At all relevant times, Dr. Mussina was an employee/agent of Kaiser Permanente and was acting within the course and scope of his employment/agency for Kaiser Permanente.
16. On or about June 5, 2023, Ms. Mays, a United Airlines flight attendant, presented to Dr. Mussina at Kaiser Permanente in Gaithersburg for treatment of an ankle injury she suffered in a car accident.
17. At the time of her visit on July 8, 2023, Ms. Mays had a longstanding history of injuries, which Dr. Mussina knew or should have known would have been exacerbated by inappropriate physical contact with her.
18. In fact, Dr. Mussina had a history of preying upon female Kaiser patients who were vulnerable to inappropriate physical contact.
19. On August 18, 2023, Ms. Mays was unaccompanied for her appointment with Dr. Mussina, during which Dr. Mussina performed a physical examination of Ms. Mays.
20. A Kaiser-employed chaperone was absent during Dr. Mussina’s physical examination of Ms. Mays.
21. At the beginning of the examination, Ms. Mays told Dr. Mussina that she was in a lot of pain and asked if she might have fractured her ankle as a result of a car crash in December 2022.
22. Dr. Mussina documented in Ms. Mays’s medical record that he performed several musculoskeletal tests on her involving manipulation of her head and neck as well as her legs. Dr. Mussina further documented that Ms. Mays had pain on palpation at the lumbar facet joints.
23. At one point during Dr. Mussina’s examination, he stood behind Ms. Mays and touched her spine from the top to the bottom while asking her if she experienced any pain.
24. Dr. Mussina asked her to pull her pants down. When she complied, Dr. Mussina, who was not wearing gloves, touched her buttocks and anus.
25. Dr. Mussina stopped to put on a glove and then inserted his finger in Ms. Mays’s anus, asking her if she felt any pain. At no time before placing his finger into Mrs. Mays’s anus did Dr. Mussina explain to Mrs. Mays that this action was a required part of his proposed physical examination, nor did he obtain her informed consent for this invasive physical contact and battery.
26. Dr. Mussina then instructed Ms. Mays to pull up her pants and told her it was unlikely that she had fractured her spine. Dr. Mussina told Ms. Mays that if she had fractured any bones in her lower
    spine, the fracture would have healed with time.
27. Dr. Mussina ordered MRIs of Ms. Mays’s cervical and thoracic spine and x-rays of her coccyx and lumbosacral spine.
28. As Dr. Mussina entered information on the computer, someone knocked on the closed examination room door and told him he was needed elsewhere. Dr. Mussina replied that he was with a patient and was almost finished.
29. Dr. Mussina, who was seated on a rolling stool, instructed Ms. Mays to approach him. He positioned her between his legs and instructed her to pull down her pants. Dr. Mussina put on a glove and once again inserted his finger in her anus, this time further than the first insertion. At no time before placing his finger into Mrs. Mays’s anus a second time did Dr. Mussina’ explain to Mrs. Mays that this action was a required part of his proposed physical examination, nor did he obtain her informed consent for this invasive physical contact and battery.
30. After removing his finger from Ms. Mays’s anus, Dr. Mussina rose and washed his hands, repeating to Ms. Mays that he did not think that she had a broken bone.
31. At no time did Dr. Mussina explain to Ms. Mays the reason why he inserted his finger into her anus on two occasions.
32. Ms. Mays felt very uncomfortable and upset after Dr. Mussina had touched her and ran to the bathroom to clean herself.
33. Ms. Mays did not return to Dr. Mussina after her appointment. She was so upset by Dr. Mussina’s conduct that she did not open a follow-up email from him for almost two weeks.
34. In September and October 2023, Ms. Mays emailed Dr. Mussina to inquire about the results of her tests. Dr. Mussina responded to her first email but failed to respond to her subsequent correspondence.
35. On October 1, 2022, Ms. Mays emailed her family doctor Nancy McGregor. In the email, she reported that she felt Dr. Mussina had sexually abused her.
36. Upon information and belief, Kaiser Permanente knew at least by May 2023, if not earlier, that Dr. Mussina was inappropriately touching and fondling his vulnerable female pain management patients. Despite such knowledge, Kaiser Permanente negligently continued to retain Dr. Mussina as its employee for over a year, negligently continued to allow Dr. Mussina to treat these vulnerable pain management patients without supervision, and refused to transfer Dr. Mussina’s female patients to another pain management doctor. By and through this conduct, Kaiser, in fact, and as a matter of law, consented to this form of conduct and scope of employment by its employee, Dr. Mussina.
37. Kaiser Permanente continued to employ Dr. Mussina until October 28, 2023 and continued to allow Dr. Mussina to examine female patients without a chaperone or any other supervision.
38. Kaiser Permanente terminated Dr. Mussina’s employment on October 28, 2023, after receiving numerous complaints that he had inappropriately touched patients during his examinations or treatment of them.
39. Following an investigation of Dr. Mussina and Kaiser Permanente, the Maryland Board of Physicians summarily suspended Dr. Mussina’s license on April 18, 2024 and continued that suspension on May 8, 2024. Copies of those Orders for Summary Suspension are attached and incorporated herein by reference.
40. At all times relevant to the claims at the bar, Plaintiff was neither contributorily negligent nor did she assume the risk of her injuries or consent to the inappropriate physical contact by Dr. Mussina.

COUNT I: (Negligence/Medical Malpractice – Dr. Mussina)

41. The Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference herein all of the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-34 above and further alleges as follows:
42. At all relevant times, Dr. Mussina owed Ms. Mays a duty to exercise that degree of care, skill, and judgment ordinarily expected of a reasonably competent healthcare provider in the specialty of pain management acting in the same or similar circumstances and not to engage in inappropriate physical contact with his patients to include Ms. Mays.
43. Dr. Mussina was negligent and breached the accepted standards of care in treating Ms. Mays. These breaches of the standard of care include, but are not limited to, the following: 1) negligently failing to maintain an appropriate doctor-patient relationship; 2) attempting to exploit the therapeutic relationship with the Plaintiff for personal gain; 3) inappropriately examining and touching the Plaintiff; 4) engaging in inappropriate physical acts of intimacy with the Plaintiff that went beyond what was necessary for the proper performance of medical services; 5) negligently and carelessly violating professional and ethical boundaries; 6) failing to have a chaperone present during his examination and treatment of the Plaintiff; and 7) being otherwise negligent and careless.
44. As a direct and proximate result of the negligent and careless acts and omissions of Dr. Mussina, the Plaintiff experienced pain, suffering, mental anguish, physical injury, unnecessary medical care and expenses, lost wages, lost future wages, loss of future earning capacity, and was otherwise injured and damaged.

WHEREFORE: The Plaintiff claims monetary damages in excess of the concurrent jurisdiction of the District Court ($30,000.00) against Dr. Mussina, in an amount to be determined at trial, plus costs, post-judgment interest at the legal rate of ten percent (10%) per annum from the date of judgment, and for any further relief that this Honorable Court determines necessary and appropriate.

COUNT II: (Battery – Dr. Mussina)

45. The Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference herein all of the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-38 of her lawsuit above and further alleges as follows:
46. The conduct and actions of Dr. Mussina, including the sexual assault and battery of Plaintiff, constitute an intentional and offensive touching of Plaintiff to which Plaintiff did not consent.
47. The conduct and actions of Dr. Mussina, including the sexual assault and battery of Plaintiff, were neither medically indicated nor clinically justifiable.
48. The intentional, nonconsensual touching of Plaintiff by Dr. Mussina was highly offensive to Plaintiff’s reasonable sense of dignity.
49. As a direct and proximate result of the intentional acts of Dr. Mussina, Plaintiff experienced pain, suffering, mental anguish, physical injury, unnecessary medical care and expenses, lost wages, lost future wages, loss of future earning capacity, and was otherwise injured and damaged.

WHEREFORE: The Plaintiff claims compensatory and punitive monetary damages in excess of the concurrent jurisdiction of the District Court ($30,000.00) against Dr. Mussina, in an amount to be determined at trial, plus costs, post-judgment interest at the legal rate of ten percent (10%) per annum from the date of judgment, and for any further relief that this Honorable Court determines necessary and appropriate.

COUNT III: (Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress – Dr. Mussina)

50. The Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference herein all of the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-43 above and further alleges as follows:
51. Dr. Mussina’s conduct in sexually assaulting and battering Plaintiff was intentional and in deliberate disregard for the high degree of probability that Plaintiff would suffer emotional distress as a result.
52. Dr. Mussina’s conduct in sexually assaulting and battering Plaintiff was extreme and outrageous.
53. Dr. Mussina’s conduct and actions were the direct and proximate cause of severe emotional distress to Plaintiff.
54. As a direct and proximate result of the intentional acts of Dr. Mussina, Plaintiff experienced pain, suffering, severe mental anguish, physical injury, unnecessary medical care, and expenses, lost wages, lost future wages, loss of future earning capacity, and was otherwise injured and damaged.

WHEREFORE: The Plaintiff claims compensatory and punitive monetary damages in excess of the concurrent jurisdiction of the District Court ($30,000.00) against Dr. Mussina, in an amount to be determined at trial, plus costs, post-judgment interest at the legal rate of ten percent (10%) per annum from the date of judgment, and for any further relief that this Honorable Court determines necessary and appropriate.

COUNT IV: (Battery – Kaiser Permanente)

55. The Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference herein all of the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-48 above and further alleges as follows:
56. The conduct and actions of Kaiser Permanente acting by and through its employee/agents, including, but not limited to, Dr. Mussina, who inappropriately touched Plaintiff, constitutes an intentional and offensive touching of Plaintiff to which Plaintiff did not consent.
57. The conduct and actions of Kaiser Permanente acting by and through its employee/agents, including, but not limited to, Dr. Mussina was neither medically indicated nor clinically justifiable.
58. The intentional, nonconsensual touching of Plaintiff by Kaiser Permanente acting by and through its employee/agents, including, but not limited to, Dr. Mussina, was highly offensive to Plaintiff’s reasonable sense of dignity.
59. As a direct and proximate result of the intentional acts of Kaiser Permanente acting by and through its employee/agents, including, but not limited to, Dr. Mussina, the Plaintiff experienced pain, suffering, mental anguish, physical injury, unnecessary medical care, and expenses, lost wages, lost future wages, loss of future earning capacity, and was otherwise injured and damaged.

WHEREFORE: The Plaintiff claims compensatory and punitive monetary damages in excess of the concurrent jurisdiction of the District Court ($30,000.00) against Kaiser Permanente, in an amount to be determined at trial, plus costs, post-judgment interest at the legal rate of ten percent (10%) per annum from the date of judgment, and for any further relief that this Honorable Court determines necessary and appropriate.

COUNT V: (Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress – Kaiser Permanente)

60. The Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference herein all of the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-53 above and further alleges as follows:
61. Kaiser Permanente’s conduct by and through its employees/agents, including, but not limited to, Dr. Mussina, who sexually assaulted and battered Plaintiff, was intentional and in deliberate disregard for the high degree of probability that Plaintiff would suffer emotional distress as a result.
62. Kaiser Permanente’s conduct in acting by and through its employees/agents, including, but not limited to, Dr. Mussina, was extreme and outrageous.
63. Kaiser Permanente’s conduct and actions in acting by and through its employee/agents, including, but not limited to, Dr. Mussina, were the direct and proximate cause of severe emotional distress to Plaintiff.
64. As a direct and proximate result of the intentional acts of Kaiser Permanente acting by and through its employee/agents, including, but not limited to, Dr. Mussina, the Plaintiff experienced pain, suffering, severe mental anguish, physical injury, unnecessary medical care and expenses, lost wages, lost future wages, loss of future earning capacity, and was otherwise injured and damaged.

WHEREFORE: The Plaintiff claims compensatory and punitive monetary damages in excess of the concurrent jurisdiction of the District Court ($30,000.00) against Kaiser Permanente, in an amount to be determined at trial, plus costs, post-judgment interest at the legal rate of ten percent (10%) per annum from the date of judgment, and for any further relief that this Honorable Court determines necessary and appropriate.

COUNT VI: (Medical Malpractice/Respondeat Superior – Kaiser Permanente)

65. The Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference herein all of the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-58 above and further alleges as follows:
66. At all times relevant hereto, Dr. Mussina acted in the course and scope of his employment/agency for Kaiser Permanente and breached the applicable standard of medical care, which was a proximate cause of physical injury and other damages to Ms. Mays.
67. Dr. Mussina took advantage of this position as a Kaiser Permanente physician to sexually assault and batter Kaiser Permanente patients, including the Plaintiff.
68. Dr. Mussina committed sexual assault and battery against Plaintiff while he was acting as a physician for Kaiser under the guise of medical treatment and in furtherance of Kaiser Permanente’s interests.
69. Dr. Mussina’s acts of sexual assault and battery against Plaintiff and other Kaiser Permanente patients were regularly committed at Kaiser Permanente healthcare facilities, including the Gaithersburg facility where Plaintiff was assaulted.
70. As Dr. Mussina’s employer/principal, Kaiser Permanente is vicariously liable for his actions within the course and scope of his employment/agency.
71. As the employer/principal responsible for the actions of its employees/agents, including but not limited to Dr. Mussina, Kaiser Permanente caused Plaintiff to experience pain, suffering, mental anguish, physical injury, unnecessary medical care and expenses, lost wages, lost future wages, loss of future earning capacity, and other injuries and damages.

WHEREFORE: The Plaintiff claims monetary damages in excess of the concurrent jurisdiction of the District Court ($30,000.00) against Kaiser Permanente, in an amount to be determined at trial, plus costs, post-judgment interest at the legal rate of ten percent (10%) per annum from the date of judgment, and for any further relief that this Honorable Court determines necessary and appropriate.

COUNT VII: (Negligent Hiring, Supervision, Credentialing, and Retention – Kaiser Permanente)

72. The Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference herein all of the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-65 above and further alleges as follows:
73. As of at least August 18, 2016, Kaiser Permanente knew or reasonably should have known of Dr. Mussina’s propensities to sexually batter, threaten, harm, assault, and otherwise mentally, physically, and emotionally injure female patients.
74. As of at least August 18, 2016, Kaiser knew that Dr. Mussina was being placed in a position of employment where he would have unfettered access to vulnerable female patients without direct supervision, oversight, or monitoring.
75. Kaiser Permanente had a duty of care to Plaintiff, as well as to other female patients when hiring, retaining, supervising, and evaluating its prospective employees, including Dr. Mussina, to timely, adequately, and appropriately investigate, heed, and act on all reasonable suggestions and information that Dr. Mussina had the propensity to, and/or had actually, inappropriately touched female patients in the course and scope of his employment for Kaiser Permanente.
76. Kaiser Permanente had a duty of care to Plaintiff, as well as to other female patients, to prohibit Dr. Mussina from privately interacting with Plaintiff as well as with other female patients, given Dr. Mussina’s propensity to sexually batter, threaten, harm, assault, and otherwise mentally, physically, and emotionally injure female patients.
77. Upon information and belief, Dr. Mussina engaged in unlawful sexual battery of numerous female patients while employed by Kaiser Permanente before his physical contact with Plaintiff
    on August 18, 2023
78. Dr. Mussina used his position as a Kaiser Permanente physician to gain access to vulnerable female patients and to assault and commit sexual battery against Plaintiff and other women.
79. Kaiser Permanente knew, or should have known, that Dr. Mussina had committed sexual battery against other female patients before August 18, 2016, while employed by Kaiser Permanente and that Dr. Mussina had a propensity to assault and commit sexual battery against female patients and to threaten, harm, and injure such patients otherwise physically.
80. Kaiser Permanente continued to permit Dr. Mussina’s unfettered access to vulnerable female patients without a chaperone or other close personal supervision.
81. Kaiser Permanente failed to investigate the claims that Dr. Mussina had assaulted, battered, and otherwise inappropriately touched female patients before August 18, 2023.
82. Kaiser had a duty of care to Plaintiff, as well as to other female patients, to protect Plaintiff and its female patients and to otherwise ensure the safety of its female patients, including Plaintiff, from being assaulted and battered by Kaiser’s employees and/or agent, including Dr. Mussina.
83. Assaults and sexual batteries of the sort suffered by Plaintiff were entirely preventable had Kaiser Permanente timely, adequately, and appropriately investigated the complaints made regarding Dr. Mussina’s inappropriate contact with other patients prior to August 18, 2023, and intervened by prohibiting Dr. Mussina’s continuing unfettered and unsupervised access to vulnerable female patients, including Plaintiff.
84. In breach of its duty of care, Kaiser Permanente negligently retained Dr. Mussina when Kaiser knew, or should have known, of Dr. Mussina’s propensity to sexually assault, batter, and otherwise harm and injure vulnerable female patients, including Plaintiff.
85. In breach of its duty of care, Kaiser Permanente was also negligent in supervising Dr. Mussina by 1) failing to engage a chaperone for any of Dr. Mussina’s examinations of Plaintiff and Dr. Mussina’s other patients; 2) failing to require Dr. Mussina’s to engage a chaperone for all examinations; and 3) allowing Dr. Mussina to continue to examine and treat female patients in private and without a chaperone after being provided notice that Dr. Mussina was inappropriately touching patients.
86. The additional negligent and careless acts and omissions of the Defendant, Kaiser, include, but are not limited to:
    1. Failing to establish reasonable criteria for the granting of, withdrawal, or reduction of clinical privileges;
    2. Failing to exercise reasonable care to ensure that the duty of accountability of physicians at the Kaiser facility for medical care rendered to patients at the Kaiser facility is discharged;
    3. Failing to exercise reasonable care to detect when actions or behavior of a medical staff member are detrimental to patient care or general safety;
    4. Failing to exercise reasonable care to detect that actions or behavior of a medical staff member demonstrate noncompliance with Medical Center or Medical Staff Bylaws, Rules and Regulations or Policies and Procedures, and State Law;
    5. Failing to exercise reasonable care to detect that actions or behavior of a medical staff member are disruptive to Kaiser’s operation;
    6. Failing to exercise reasonable care to detect that the actions or behavior of a medical staff member, in particular Dr. Mussina, are unprofessional, unethical, or illegal;
    7. Failing to exercise appropriate and reasonable care in appointing and/or reappointing the Defendant, Dr. Mussina, as a member of the Kaiser Medical Staff;
    8. Failing to exercise appropriate and reasonable care in granting medical privileges to the Defendant, Dr. Mussina, to perform unsupervised/unchaperoned physical examinations of Kaiser patients, including Ms. Mays, and
    9. Being otherwise careless and negligent.
87. As the employer/principal responsible for the actions of its employees/agents, including but not limited to Dr. Mussina, Kaiser Permanente’s negligent hiring, negligent retention, negligent supervision, and negligent credentialing of Dr. Mussina was a proximate cause of the Plaintiff’s pain, suffering, severe mental anguish, physical injury, unnecessary medical care and expenses, lost wages, lost future wages, loss of future earning capacity, and other injuries and damages.

WHEREFORE: The Plaintiff claims monetary damages in excess of the concurrent jurisdiction of the District Court ($30,000.00) against Kaiser Permanente, in an amount to be determined at trial, plus costs, post-judgment interest at the legal rate of ten percent (10%) per annum from the date of judgment, and for any further relief that this Honorable Court determines necessary and appropriate.

COUNT VIII: (Failure to Comply with Maryland’s Informed Consent Law – All Defendants)

88. The Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference herein all of the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-81 above and further alleges as follows:
89. The Defendants, Dr. Mussina, and Kaiser Permanente, individually and through their natural, apparent, and/or ostensible agents, servants, and/or employees, specifically including Dr. Mussina, owed to the Plaintiff, Ms. Mays, the duty to notify Plaintiff of the nature of the procedure appropriately, the benefits of the procedure, the probability of success of the procedure, the proposed alternatives to the proposed procedure, and the risks of the procedure to obtain the Plaintiff’s informed consent to her plan of care, physical examination by Dr. Mussina, and/or treatment.
90. The Defendants, Dr. Mussina and Kaiser Permanente, individually and through their real, apparent, and/or ostensible agents, servants, and/or employees, specifically include Dr. Mussina, failed to appropriately obtain Ms. Mays’s informed consent for the plan of care and physical examination by Dr. Mussina, including, but not limited to, Dr. Mussina placing his finger in her anus.
91. As the direct and proximate result of the failure by the Defendants Dr. Mussina and Kaiser Permanente, individually and through their real, apparent, and/or ostensible agents, servants, and/or employees, to specifically include Dr. Mussina, to obtain Ms. Mays informed consent, Ms. Mays, experienced pain, suffering, severe mental anguish, physical injury, unnecessary medical care and expenses, lost wages, lost future wages, loss of future earning capacity, and other injuries and damages.

WHEREFORE: The Plaintiff claims monetary damages in excess of the jurisdiction of the District Court ($30,000.00) against Kaiser Permanente and Dr. Mussina, in an amount to be determined at trial, plus costs, post-judgment interest at the legal rate of ten percent (10%) per annum from the date of judgment, and for any further relief that this Honorable Court determines necessary and appropriate.

Note: Some names, dates, and facts were changed to protect the victim’s identity.

Doctor Sex Abuse Lawsuits

Physician sex abuse lawsuits are more common than ever. It is not that there are more doctor sex abuse cases today. It is that more women are willing to come forward. This is a good thing that will protect other women in the future. (The number of women reporting doctor sex abuse is still low in relative terms, even today.)

It also benefits the women who have been targeted. Victims of doctor sex abuse often find justice, closure, and vindication by hiring medical sex abuse lawyers to fight back. The role of a doctor sex abuse attorney is critical, as they provide the necessary legal support to pursue claims against individuals who exploit their professional position. Our team works diligently to ensure that the victims’ voices are heard and that they receive the compensation they deserve for the harm suffered.

Families and victims looking for guidance are wise to turn to doctor sex abuse lawyers who have experience with similar cases, ensuring that they receive informed and empathetic legal representation.