Sexual Abuse by Medical Providers

Wear Trial Law represents patients sexually abused by physicians, therapists, technicians, chiropractors, and other medical staff in California. Claims frequently extend beyond the individual provider to the practice group, hospital, or clinic that credentialed and supervised them. Michael Wear handles these cases personally, and consultations are confidential.

Why patients doubt themselves — and why that is by design

Medical abuse hides inside legitimate procedure. An examination has a clinical justification. A patient is undressed, alone, and often sedated or in pain. The provider narrates what is happening in clinical terms.

The result is that most patients spend months questioning their own perception before telling anyone. That delay is not a weakness in a case. It is a documented and expected feature of this category of abuse, and it is explainable to a jury.

Common circumstances

• Examinations performed without clinical justification, or extending beyond what the visit required
• Chaperone policies that existed on paper but were never followed
• Abuse of a sedated, anesthetized, or restrained patient
• Sexual contact between a psychotherapist and a patient — conduct California prohibits outright, regardless of purported consent
• Abuse by ancillary staff during imaging, physical therapy, or transport

The institution’s role

The recurring institutional failure is a complaint received and not acted on. Practices and hospitals maintain patient complaint logs, peer review records, credentialing files, and chaperone protocols. When a provider has been the subject of prior complaints and continued seeing patients unsupervised, the institution’s own negligence is the claim.

A Medical Board complaint is a separate process and does not compensate a patient or preserve a civil deadline. Both can proceed, but they are not substitutes.

Is this a medical malpractice case?

Usually not, and the distinction has real consequences. Sexual abuse is not the negligent rendering of professional services, and characterizing it as malpractice can import shorter deadlines and statutory damage caps that should not apply. These claims are generally pleaded as sexual battery and related intentional torts, alongside negligence claims against the institution. Getting that framing right at filing matters.